The SSA only exists because of your support. Please donate today. Secular shorts: SSA Board Member Maggie Ardiente hits the headlines! Read it here! Is Richard Dawkins coming to an event near you? The SSA is pleased to announce his book tour for the paperback release of The God Delusion . Find out here! IHS's New York State lobbyist Jennifer Lange is featured in the New York Times! Read it here! The Friendly Atheist has some interesting observations about music, ancient Chinese magic, and more at friendlyatheist.com. The fledgling group at Nicholls State University scores a full article in their school paper, complete with mention of the SSA! Read it here. The SSA only exists because of your support. Please donate today. Secular shorts: SSA Board Member Maggie Ardiente hits the headlines! Read it here! Is Richard Dawkins coming to an event near you? The SSA is pleased to announce his book tour for the paperback release of The God Delusion. Find out here! IHS's New York State lobbyist Jennifer Lange is featured in the New York Times! Read it here! The Friendly Atheist has some interesting observations about music, ancient Chinese magic, and more at friendlyatheist.com. The fledgling group at Nicholls State University scores a full article in their school paper, complete with mention of the SSA! Read it here. Last month, in addition to having leap day, also held the last lunar eclipse until 2010.  Contact us! Call us toll free at 1-877-842-9474. You can also email us at ssa@secularstudents.org. We are always happy to hear from you and answer any questions or concerns! What do you think? This is your eNewsletter and we are always updating and changing to fit your needs, so please let us know what you think of our new format! Email enews@secularstudents.org with any suggestions, ideas, or comments. eMpirical Team
Editor-in-Chief:
Elizabeth R.A. Liddell
Editors: Alison Bates, August E. Brunsman IV, Nic Hall, Hemant Mehta, Jessica Sharon
| A lot of great things have been happening in the last few weeks! Check out the dates for the Richard Dawkins Book Tour, learn to build your group, and see what's been happening around Darwin Day. Is your group doing something exciting this semester? Let us know! We love to share our affiliates' success, and we'd be happy to put up a note about upcoming events! Email us today!  On Feb. 12, 2008, the Institute for Humanist Studies (IHS), hosted the first ever Humanist Legislative Advocacy Day. Humanist activists in New York state came to Albany to persuade their elected representatives to support secular positions a wide variety of issues. By Ruth N. Geller, editor of the Humanist Network News.
On Feb. 12, 2008, the Institute for Humanist Studies (IHS), hosted the first ever Humanist Legislative Advocacy Day. Humanist activists in New York state came to Albany to persuade their elected representatives to support such issues as: access to emergency contraceptives; same sex marriage legislation; comprehensive sex education in the schools; and expanding therapeutic embryonic stem cell research. "Today, you've made history, the largest minority group never to be counted was heard," said Matt Cherry, at an afternoon press conference in the Legislative Office Building. "Get in the game," urged Cherry. "It's past time to fight back." Throughout the day, approximately 20 humanists from all over the state met with more than 20 legislators and their staffs. "It's something I've always wanted to do," said Ben Dreidel, 36, of Saratoga County, N.Y. Dreidel is a member of the American Humanist Association, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and has started his own local atheist group. He heard about the advocacy day from the Humanist Network News. "I wanted to lobby for something good and participate in the process," said Betty Gordon of the New York City Atheists, who had traveled almost three hours for the day. "We've got to get people more active," added Ken Bronstein, president of New York City Atheists. Also listening to Cherry's message was The Rev. Duane Motley and several other members of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, which describes itself as New York's "only full-time Christian Lobby Organization." "The purpose of this day is to let New York legislators know that there are almost two million New Yorkers who report to have 'no religion'; and to share our mainstream values as active voters in New York," said Jennifer Lange, IHS's legislative liaison and a registered lobbyist. Lange coordinated the event. A major focus of the meetings with legislators and staff people was to ask elected officials to vote against the so-called Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). IHS is strongly opposed to RFRA which grants special privileges to religious groups at the potential risk of all New York citizens. The bill is also unnecessary, as freedom of religion is already fully protected under both the federal and the New York State Constitution. If passed, a virtual Pandora's Box of legal woes could burst forth, as almost anyone could claim a religious exemption to any particular law. In one version of the bill, a white prisoner could claim that their "religion" forbade them to be interred with a black prisoner and demand segregated accommodations. Potentially, RFRA could lead to changes in laws pertaining to child abuse and neglect, labor, fair housing and zoning and other issues. Portions of the federal RFRA bill, passed in 1993, have already been struck down through legal challenges. The Secular Coalition for America, of which IHS is a founding member, is working to oppose the remaining federal RFRA. In New York, there are three versions of the bill, one sponsored by Gov. Elliot Spitzer and one by Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver. An upstate assemblymember said that he believes RFRA is being introduced now because "there's a very aggressive conservative Christian and Jewish presence." The lobbying date coincided with the anniversary of Charles Darwin's birthday, an event celebrated world-wide by secular and religious groups alike. The Darwin Day Celebration is now an official program of IHS.) At the request of IHS, a resolution was introduced by Assemblymembers Sam Hoyt, D-Buffalo, and Richard N. Gottfried, D-Manhattan. The resolution garnered about two dozen other sponsors. Also, at the request of the Institute, Matthew Chapman, Darwin's great-great-grandson and a resident of New York City, wrote a letter to legislators asking them to vote in support of the Darwin Day resolution. On the eve of what would have been Darwin's 199th birthday, the New York State Legislature unanimously passed the resolution honoring the famed evolutionist, becoming the first state in the U.S. to do so. Resolutions carry more weight than proclamations because they are voted on by legislators, and become part of the permanent legislative records. Among other things, the resolution "recognizes that sound scientific-based evidence is the cornerstone of good public policy." (On Friday, Jan. 11, the city of Albany issued its own Darwin Day Proclamation, at the request of IHS, joining many other cities and municipalities.) By the end of the Legislative Advocacy Day, most of those involved felt their message had been heard. At least one Democratic Assemblymember agreed with the lobbyists that "you don't want to see the blurring of the line (between religion and government)." He told the assembled humanists, atheists and freethinkers, that they were the first group that had spoken up against RFRA. The assemblymember, who is actually a co-sponsor of one of the current RFRA bills, said that he would look at it again. A member of the New York City Atheists felt that her local Assemblyperson had been receptive. The Humanist Legislative Advocacy Day is foreseen as an annual event that will grow larger each year. However, individuals may also come to Albany any time during the legislative session to lobby for humanist rights alongside our legislative liasion. Lange also urges concerned humanists to lobby their representatives at their home offices on Thursdays and Fridays now, and when session ends, roughly on June 23. "I want them (legislators) to know we exist and that we are voters," said Maureen Furlong of Albany. "I wish there were 10 busloads full of people." "It was a great event," said Cherry afterwards. "It was the most exhilarating day I can remember in 17 years working for humanist causes." This article originally appeared in the Humanist Network News and is reprinted with permission. Author Ruth N. Geller is the editor of Humanist Network News, the weekly e-zine of the Institute for Humanist Studies. Don't you just love it when other people tell you what you're doing?
 John West, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, claims that "evolution proponents have launched a movement" with the plans of elevating Charles Darwin and demoting President Abraham Lincoln. Yes, that's Darwin Day he's talking about. No, we didn't know anything about Lincoln-bashing, either. Furthermore, he names the Institute for Humanist Studies an "anti-religious" organization on the Christian Broadcast Network. Read the CBS article here and watch the video segments below.  From August E. Brunsman IV, Executive Director I recently recieved an email from a leader of the Secular Humanists on Campus at East Carolina University asking about how he could take his six-member fledging group and get it fired up. He'd just returned from a poorly attended movie showing.
I wrote him back with some ideas and I figure that there's no reason not to share them with everyone who's trying to build momentum for their group, so here you are: That sucks that only seven people showed up to your last meeting.
I will say that in my experience movies tend not to be especially well attended. Media is so ubiquitous these days, it's hard to get people out for a movie. So I wouldn't take that as a sign that there's no potential on your campus. On a campus of over 20,000, there's potential.
You need to engage people for them to show up... that can mean getting them excited about a topic they don't usually talk about or participating in some kind of work to make your campus or community a better place (i.e. policy change or public service).
Here are some specific event ideas that could get people excited. They will all take more work than putting together a movie night, but the results and momentum should be well worth the work. I would pick the two you think your group is in the best position to do, and save the rest for the fall.
I'm going to list them in order of what I think will be the simplest to the most labor intensive. They are all well within the capabilities of a handful of dedicated student volunteers to pull off well.
Btw, ideas #1, #4, and #5 will require a LOT of advertising to succeed. This means tons of flyers all over campus, lots of chalking, setting up a Facebook event, searching Facebook for people with "atheist" or the like in their profiles (http://www.secularstudents.org/node/1613) and letting them know about the events, and so on.
#1
Panel: Ask an Atheist
I know I mentioned this in an earlier email, but I've seen these be quite successful. You get a panel of three to five atheists (or agnostics, or whatever label people want to use) and invite the public to ask them questions. It's really important to advertise these events very heavily to undergrads. Flyers in dorms are good--chalkings right outside of dorms are good too. It's also really important for someone to moderate the questions and for that person to make one thing VERY clear at the beginning of the event. This is not going to be a chance for people in the audience to convert the people on the panel, and the panel members aren't here to convert the audience. This is an opportunity for us to learn about each other.
For more background on doing an Ask an Atheist event check out: http://www.secularstudents.org/node/1237 & http://www.secularstudents.org/node/240.
#2
OUT Campaign Tabling
This could actually dovetail quite well with the Ask An Atheist event. Basically, we set you up with a bunch of OUT Campaign literature, stickers, pins, etc. and your group sets up a table in your student union or out on some large green space. You let people know about the OUT Campaign and also let them know about your group. This is a good way to advertise a meeting you have coming up. I know that the Dawkins people are charging only their cost for pins and T-shirts. I'm fairly certain that we could at least fund a small grant to get them to send some pins your way. I know we could send you lots of stickers for free.
#3
Service Project
Most student organization offices on campuses your size have a person that's responsible for setting up service opportunities for campus groups. Of course, you can also likely come up with an idea on your own and just do that. I've seen groups do Blood drives (http://www.secularstudents.org/node/775 & http://www.secularstudents.org/node/671), participate in Dance-a-thons (http://www.secularstudents.org/node/1901), participate in local AIDS walks, and raise money for Doctors Without Borders. I think you're somewhat better off starting off by participating as a group in a larger service project that is being organized by a larger group. Service projects are great opportunities for the members you have in your group to invite a friend or two along to help. I don't think it would be a good idea for your group to duplicate the Freedthought Books For Prisoners project created by our affiliate at Reed, you might want to come up with your own signature freethought service project or connect with the folks at Reed to see if you could collaborate.
#4
Debate/Panel Discussion: Is America a Christian Nation?
With "In God We Trust" on our money, "under God" in our pledge, the Federal Faith Based initiative funding, attempts to teach creationism in public schools, and attempt to post the Ten Commandments in court houses, it's often argued that America is a Christian nation. A review of the founding documents and history of the United States revelers that our government is certainly not a Christian government. Also, while it's questionable if any of the founding fathers were atheists, it's fairly well established that many of them were not Christian. A debate or panel discussion on this topic is likely to draw a big crowd and really get people excited.
You can try to use local talent or we can help get some national people involved. Obvious choices include Herb Silverman (http://www.secularstudents.org/node/222) and Rob Boston (http://www.secularstudents.org/node/212). They are both excellent speakers and are both fairly close to you in D.C. Herb actually usually lives in Charleston, SC--but he's doing a year of research at George Mason. Another possibility would be Dan Barker (http://www.secularstudents.org/node/211). He's not local, but he loves to travel.
If this is going to be a debate, you need some folks who are willing to argue that the U.S. is a Christian nation. Usually you don't need to look any further than your local chapter of Campus Crusade for Christ (or the like) to get someone who's interested in having a public dialog about this. We have found lately that Christians tend to be more gun shy about open debates lately and much more eager to get involved in panel discussions. Whatever you call it, we have certainly found that having multiple points of view greatly increases the appeal of the event.
It may also be the case that there are history professors or law professors at your school that would be good folks to discuss the secular nature of U.S. government and history. You want to be a little careful with this as doing well in these sorts of events requires both being knowledgeable AND being good at extemporaneous public speaking.
Other debate/discussion topics you might want to take on include: Does God Exist (a classic), Stem Cell Research, and Domestic Surveillance.
#5
Policy Change
Does ECU have any policies which you think violate the establishment clause? Prayer at graduation is the most obvious and common problem at many public universities. Organizing the secularists on campus to get this policy changed will upset a lot of people, but it may also bring some other people out of the wood work to join with you. There may be other local church/state issues that you can take on... you would know more about your local situation than I would. The acitivites around this can include: informational meetings, flyers on the topic, contacting the administration, writing an op-ed in the East Carolinian, handing out flyers at graduation, and tabling.
Back to Top.
By Leonard Low
To believe or not to believe, that is the question.
Steve Owen, a graduate English major, is spearheading the Atheist Student Organization, a new student club at Sacramento State which will pose the question to the campus community.
"I think it's very important to give a voice to atheists on campus considering the fact that theism is the default, normal position," Owen said.
"(One goal) is to debate and challenge theistic assumptions," Owen said.
Matthew McCormick, associate philosophy professor, said that the group of Sac State students are currently recruiting other individuals to join their atheist group. McCormick will be the faculty sponsor or adviser for the organization.
There was once another atheist club on campus, however, the students eventually graduated and others became involved in other things, McCormick said.
Robin Martin, Angelique Lopez approximately 20 other Sac State students like have already shown interest in the group.
"It is important for atheists to be represented on campus and in the larger society. Often atheists don't make their feelings known for fear of abuse or attack" said graduate English student Robin Martin.
"It's essential to inspire people to think and question the historical and present inconsistencies, violence, and exclusivity of theism and to educate through public speaking, printed materials, and creative events," said Rebekah Hall, a prospective graduate English student.
Lopez, a senior English major, said she wants "to talk to people about being an atheist and to get them to see that an atheist isn't something bad or something that has a negative connotation."
Junior computer engineering major Bikrum Singh Jolly, the vice-president of the Sikh Student Association on campus, said he would not hold any bias towards the atheist group.
"We have freedom of speech and freedom of religion. We have to be open, accepting, and willing to learn about different religions, about different cultures, and about different beliefs," Jolly said.
Sikhism is a religion practiced in India, Pakistan, and the United States. The Sikhs' purpose is not to convert people to its religion.
Senior ethnic studies major Marc Sorensen said he's having a hard time understanding the purpose of the group, however. Sorensen is a member of the on-campus International Student Christian Fellowship.
"What are the reasons for creating an atheist organization? To discuss someone you don't believe in?" Sorensen said.
Sorensen said his mission is to show the love of God to other people. Others developing a relationship with God is not in his control and he doesn't have that ability or power to create that relationship, he said.
The university does not get into the philosophical reasoning to prohibit a group from being recognized, said Louis Camera, director of student activities and assistant to the vice-president of student affairs.
"If the group discriminates against one of the protected classes of race, minority, gender, etc., then there's a problem," Camera said. "If a person is wearing a crucifix and not allowed to join, then there's a problem."
According to Camera, for a group to start an organization, there needs to be at least eight students taking six credits each.
80 percent of the group must be Sac State students, the rest may be faculty, staff or community college students. Only students can hold office or vote and two officers must attend the "nuts and bolts" workshop to learn about the university regulations for clubs.
"Belonging to an organization is a learning opportunity," Camera said.
Students interested in belonging to the group can send email to aso_csus@yahoo.com for more information. Any atheists, agnostics or others interested in the topic may join.
Leonard Low can be reached at llow@statehornet.com.
Back to Top.
Spaghetti monsters and Pastafarian pirates - contemporary spoofs of creationism - were nowhere to be found during a lecture on intelligent design at USF's University Lecture Hall on Thursday.
Nearly 200 people attended the lecture - "Origins: Who Needs Faith?" - which was the first in a two-part series. The second part will take place Thursday from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. at the University Lecture Hall.
The lecture included a PowerPoint presentation dealing with scientific defenses of intelligent design. The event, hosted by the student organization Sowers of the Seed, looked at the natural world to decide if it is a product of natural forces or intelligent design and discussed whether intelligent design has a place in science.
The lecture featured H.E. Payne Jr., who holds a doctorate in mathematics from USF, as the speaker. Douglas Northcutt, a biology professor at Florida College; Howard Colvin, who has a doctorate in organic chemistry; and John Coffman, who holds master's degrees in physics and math, made up the discussion panel following the speech.
Payne began by emphasizing the secular nature of the lecture, saying it would be fully reliant on science and leave the audience to determine which theory makes more sense after the evidence was presented.
"Usually, we all tend to see what we expect to see whenever we approach this subject with our own presuppositions," he said. "There is no room for philosophy or religion in this discussion, only science."
Payne showed a model from William Dembski's book The Design Inference, which can be used to determine the likelihood of an object being designed intelligently. This model was challenged during the discussion panel by members of the Freethinkers Club at USF for being unscientific.
"The model was pseudoscience and unable to be criticized," said Joe Oberfrank, an education major at USF.
The concluding argument Payne gave for intelligent design was the example of the human DNA strand. Because it is a double helix with crossbars that contains a certain characteristic structure he described as contingent, complex and specified, the double helix meets Dembski's model, and is thus the likely product of intelligent design, Payne said.
The open panel discussion prompted many questions from the audience, especially from those pursuing careers in science. In regards to the DNA example, one audience member mentioned that 90 percent of human DNA was actually junk and questioned whether it was intelligently designed. Payne responded that several recent studies have shown that even this "junk" DNA has some purpose.
Another student wanted to know where to find scientific experiments that proved intelligent design. No one on the panel was able to cite an experiment, though they said such studies were currently underway.
Rachel Vistein, secretary of the Freethinkers Club and a senior in biology, complained that the panelists dodged her questions and did not let her finish asking them.
"Evolution's intent is to address the diversity of life, not the origin," she said. "Evolution is defined as a variation of change in allele frequencies (different forms of the same gene) and those variations between populations both physically and temporally through time."
The second part of the lecture will take place Thursday in the University Lecture Hall from 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.
© Copyright 2008 The Oracle
Back to Top.
Bethany Heywood, a Ph.D. candidate in the UK, is seeking secular individuals to interview as part of her research. Check our her project description and sign up if you're interested in participating!
Hello, my name is Bethany Heywood and I'm a postgraduate student at the Institute of Cognition and Culture at Queen's University Belfast. I'm currently running a study that I think some of you might be interested in, since I'm looking to get a good mix of religious and secular participants, and I'm especially having trouble getting enough secular participants. Research Description: The purpose of this study is to collect information on the different types of events and themes described in narratives about important memories, and also how these types of events and themes vary with different demographic characteristics such as age, sex, education, religion, culture, and location, as well as other factors. For this study you will be interviewed on Google Talk instant messenger. During the course of this interview you will be asked to respond to questions about three different types of memories, and you will also be asked some questions about your life in general. This study will take approximately 30-45 minutes, assuming you type at a normal rate.
Compensation: Participants who complete the interview will be e-mailed a £5 gift certificate for amazon.co.uk. Participants in the United States will be offered a gift certificate for an equivalent amount in US currency (about $10.00 at current exchange rates).
How to Participate: First you need to sign up here and give me some preliminary information, which will only take you about five minutes to do. This study is only open to people from the United States and the United Kingdom, and if I have reached the number of participants I need in your demographic area, you won't be interviewed. If I can't interview you, your information will be deleted unless you'd like to be contacted in the future for other studies like this. Your information will never be given or sold to third parties.
Back to Top.
 Every month, our Southern California Campus Organizer Neil Polzin writes an update describing what he and the groups in his area have been up to.
February 25, 2008 – Charging Onward
We are charging at the new year, along with it's new challenges. Now, going into March, even the last of the community colleges have returned from break, meaning school is back into full swing here in Southern California.
We are coming off an amazing Darwin Day. Secular Student Alliance Affiliates celebrated Darwin Day on February 12, hosting events to promote science and reason as virtues. Here in Southern California, groups did a range of things, from events promoting science directly to people via tabling while passing out material and stickers, to one school having a lecture series to help promote science and reason. Overall Darwin Day is making huge bounds, with lots of help from students, especially those here in Southern California.
With school back into full swing, the weeks are quickly passing. On top of all of the meetings and events that students will be having in March, Pi Day is also approaching. Pi Day is the 14th of March each year, and is a day that many groups use as a platform to bring science into the picture. This March 14th will only be different due to the Secular Student Alliance affiliates here in Southern California. In previous years this day has not attracted any attention from Atheist or secular groups.
In addition, more and more students are showing up each month to the Atheist United meeting. With a new change in format, the meetings are slowly bringing younger atheists out for the first time. The meetings provide them with an opportunity to socialize and meeting people with a similar rational world view. The next Atheist United meeting in March should be no different. This meeting will be a spring party, the format allowing for people to be social and mingle. If you are not already planning to, come down to CFI West and bring a student along with you. It provides a great opportunity for both people to find a place of belonging and to have fun!
As we go into the spring, it is an exciting time to be an atheist. More and more pop culture is surfacing aligned with the atheist viewpoint, and each month more momentum is building. This can be seen on Capitol Hill, where the Secular Coalition for America is achieving victories that was beyond everyone wildest hopes just a few years ago (and hiring their second full-time lobbyist!). It can be seen can be seen on campus, with more student affiliate groups of the Secular Student Alliance than ever before. It can be seen in the national polls in which more and more Americans align themselves with the atheistic viewpoint, a disproportionate number of those students and young people under 25. Both local and national atheistic groups are reporting record numbers of members. Here in Southern California, we even have the amazing opportunity coming up in September to join in at the Atheist Alliance International conference hosted in Long Beach at the Queen Mary.
Neil Polzin is the Southern California Campus Organizer of the Secular Student Alliance. His position is funded by a generous grant from Atheists United. Thank you!
Back to Top.
 Lori Lipman Brown is Director of the Secular Coalition for America, where she serves as the first Congressional lobbyist representing atheists. She is also a speaker on the SSA's Speaker's Bureau. She writes a weekly blog for The Humanist; we reprint select articles with permission.
February 19 – No Blog, But A Quick Update
Well, the lobbying is heating up even more than last year -- and we are winning! Members of the Senate are acknowledging the serious civil rights problems with current "charitable choice" language which has been used to justify religious discrimination in hiring for federally funded programs (after much lobbying last month and this month by the Secular Coalition and many allied organizations).
And while Congress is taking a week long break for Presidents' Day, I've been speaking to 9 local and regional groups in Minnesota (including three student organizations -- a shout out to CASH). It's always heartening to find students willing to take the baton and continue the fight -- us old folks won't be around forever; and I'm not going to see any of you in eternity (even if it DOES turn out that I will become a pirate and hang out with Pastafarians forever and ever).
Okay, so this update isn't the same as a fun and scintillating blog entry. But the other big news is that the Secular Coalition for America is about to hire a second full time lobbyist (see the position announcement here). So maybe in a couple of weeks, I'll have more time to be my fun creative self again.
Back to Top.
 Kelly of the Rational Response Squad is writing a year-long series to address theist talking heads in the media. Kelly is a Psychology major, co-host of the RRS Radio show, and has been featured on ABC debating Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort. Here, we reprint select articles with permission.
February 7 - How to Respond to a Supercilious Christian
Not all Christians are supercilious, of course. Many are content to live and let live, and some even grant that science (despite its lack of supernatural entities) does some good. But Christianity as an organized, evangelizing movement has been on the offensive lately. Witness the new wave of evangelicals and their leaders such as Rick Warren, Lee Strobel, and William Lane Craig with their aggressive stance against scientific materialism and their bestselling books attempting to refute science. So, assuming you're an atheist, what do you say to the theist who asks, "You don't (chuckle) believe in a god (snicker)?"
Anybody familiar with the original article will see that the preceding paragraph is the same paragraph as the opening to "How to Respond to a Supercilious Atheist" by Alan Roebuck. By changing a few words, the same attack can be launched right back at him, and the rest of the article isn't much better. It appears to be a primer in projection. After all, when in doubt, just accuse them of being just like you.
Roebuck advises his fellow theists to take a different approach to defending the faith-instead of coming up with actual evidence, you should just tell atheists how our worldview is the one that is based on assumptions and presuppositions. He eschews using the First Cause argument and the defense of miracles because, "No matter what evidence you give, the supercilious atheist finds a way to dismiss it." I wonder if he has ever considered that it may be dismissed because it is not valid evidence.
The First Cause argument doesn't work because, at best, it can only be used to show that something created the universe, and that something is not necessarily Yahweh. It could be another god or a multitude of gods. Even that is questionable, though, due to the fact that they have yet to show that the universe itself is contingent upon some necessary being and not the necessary "being" itself. I would also advise theists to drop this argument from their arsenal, but not in favor of Roebuck's plan.
Roebuck states that, "it is not the case that your evidence for God is valid but nevertheless is cancelled out by his superior evidence against God." Gee, Sherlock, where can I find this "evidence against God?" How about the absolute penury of evidence for god? Theists have not yet grasped the concept of the burden of proof, apparently. It's really simple, so I find it astounding that it is so easily dismissed-the one who makes the positive claim (ie-god exists) is the one who has to prove that claim, not the person who is in the default position of suspension of belief due to lack of evidence (ie-as far as we know, god does not exist). As much as I hate to be the bearer of bad news, if you believe something without sufficient evidence, you are irrational.
Roebuck claims that atheism's vulnerability lies in the "false worldview" that we hold that only material, objectively verifiable things exist. First of all, this is not true. Not all atheists are scientific materialists. There are many who believe lots of different wacky theories that don't involve a god and there are others with other notions of how the universe operates. This argument is only applicable to a portion of atheists who also hold a materialistic worldview.
Roebuck then claims that scientific materialists assume this and have come to their conclusion before examining the evidence. (Is the projection evident yet?) The only evidence that exists is physical, material, verifiable, and falsifiable. The existence of god is none of the above. Any religious statement can be considered factually meaningless by virtue of the fact that it doesn't meet the falsifiability criterion. The only assumptions being made here are that god exists and it's up to atheists to disprove that. Obviously, Roebuck doesn't understand that this is impossible, and that is the very reason why we can say that no evidence for such an entity exists.
He uses an example of a blind man dismissing the existence of color because he cannot sense it, and likens that to the atheist who can't sense god. First of all, the blind man knows he is blind. He recognizes this sensory deficiency and doesn't believe that everybody on earth is also blind. Furthermore, Roebuck is demonstrating his lack of understanding of the functioning of the brain by asserting that color exists in some more than abstract sense. Color appears as it does to us in the small portion of the light spectrum that we are able to perceive. For other creatures, the world around them is entirely different, and we can study how this process operates, what causes disorders such as blindness or the inability to perceive color and from where it stems.
Is Roebuck suggesting here that atheists suffer from a sensory deficiency as well? Does he believe that theists have been endowed with a "sixth sense" that enables them to make contact with the supernatural? If so, I'd like him to demonstrate what part of our anatomy is causing this problem so that it can be rectified. Blindness stems from either the brain or the eye itself not operating properly. Where does "spiritual blindness" originate? Seen as how all of our senses are processed in the brain, and also have an external organ by which the information is received, he should be able to show where our malfunction is occurring.
Roebuck claims that the theist must challenge our "assumptions" to properly expose the atheist as a pedant, and says that first we have to define our criteria for making the determination that there is no valid reason to believe in god and how we know they are correct. He must be talking to different atheists than I, as most people that I know would respond with the criteria being objectively verifiable evidence, and that we know this method of validation to be the most accurate due to hundreds of years of making advancements as a society thanks to the scientific method.
He moves on to what kind of evidence would be needed to verify the occurrence of an actual miracle. This would be a difficult question because most people with a scientific mindset would not know what it would take because even unexplained phenomena could potentially be explained in the future. Not knowing the answer right now doesn't imply that the answer is unknowable. Besides, an omniscient, omnipotent being would know exactly what was necessary and could provide it if he chose. Unless, of course, we are his "vessels of wrath" created only to go to hell and demonstrate god's wonderful mercy.
He again misconstrues the position of atheists who allow for the possibility of the supernatural, although I personally feel that any knowledge of such a plane of existence is impossible to ascertain, by positing, "How do you know that a super-naturalistic explanation, involving a God who intervenes from time to time, cannot be the correct explanation? Wouldn't one have to be, for all intents and purposes, omniscient in order to know that God could not have been involved?" We don't know for sure that it couldn't be the correct explanation, and he is shifting the goalpost from his particular god to "a super-naturalistic explanation." This is a common tactic in apologetics, and it should be pointed out that he doesn't know that the supernatural being that started it all wasn't Zeus. As far as the omniscience goes, we can answer that we do not have to be omniscient to say that at this time, there is no evidence for such a being and no need to appeal to one. Making up an answer when there is none is called argumentum ad ignorantium.
He attempts to take on the issue of the logical contradictions inherent in the attributes that his god is given but misses most of the salient points. He deals momentarily with omnipotence and claims that god can do "anything that can be done." Didn't god make the rules to begin with? Could he not have made them different than they are? What's the point of having an omnipotent creator of the universe who was beholden to some other rules, and from where or whom did those mandates come?
He dedicates a measly three sentences to theodicy, and just says that a god who allows evil for some unknown reason could exist, but never ties it back into the real contradiction, which is how could that god be considered omnibenevolent? Again, god either created atheists specifically to be tortured for all eternity by no fault of their own, having been given the gift of faith or not, or he just chooses not to intervene for some mysterious reason. Either way, how can one argue that this being loves me? He will send me to hell purposely, either because it's my destiny, or because he just doesn't intervene because we need faith, which is a gift from him that we are supposed to somehow give ourselves. That's not circular or anything.
He moves on to what he calls "arguing presuppositionally", and gives an inadequate explanation of an axiom, which he then changes slightly to allow for the existence of god to be a non-axiomatic axiom. He claims that all knowledge is based upon one foundational principle that cannot be proven, but is intuited. He is muddying the waters here by the use of the word "intuit", as an axiom is just something that is self-evident. I feel he chose that word for the specific purpose of misleading the reader and priming them for the upcoming shift in definition.
He claims that axioms can be tested by deducing whether or not the system is "logically, morally, and existentially consistent." He asserts that the atheist worldview fails because the "nature of knowledge cannot be validated empirically." People have many different epistemological views, and the use of scientific methodology to determine the validity of anything is necessarily going to have some starting point and then system of experimentation. That is all we have with which to work, and he is attempting to negate the materialist worldview by using a point that he himself believes regarding his own-that not everything can be empirically validated.
He claims that one cannot live a purely naturalistic life as that implies that you define your own meaning, and that makes everybody's meaning invalid. We couldn't "stick to it when the going gets rough." I have no idea what kind of data he is using to determine this, but the search for meaning is an individual endeavor-even for the religious. People may claim that they "live for god", but in reality, nobody does. If all they are living for is the promise of an afterlife in paradise, then they logically would all just commit suicide to get there faster. Instead, what we observe is christians not following the dictates of their own belief system and living their daily lives in much the same way that we heathens do. They also use their families, their responsibilities, their hopes, dreams, and future endeavors as "meaning." Being handed a blanket "meaning" for your existence only serves to cheapen the very concept.
He claims the existence of god is axiomatic, but cannot be "intuited" like other axioms. These are, after all, "subtle and cosmic questions." If it is not self-evident, it is not an axiom. Period. He says that any proposition "must be judged true or false in light of what we already know to be true." I'm with him there, but how on earth does that prove the existence of god as axiomatic? His writing goes from merely ignorant to absurd at this point.
Perhaps the most amusing quote is this one: "...some people are content to believe without having any proof of their beliefs, and you can't argue with someone like that." You're telling me. Again, this is an example of projection at its finest. He claims that theism excels at "accounting for the facts of reality", but I'm not sure exactly what type of reality to which he refers. Reality is that which can be observed and generally agreed upon. Imaginary sky-daddys don't fall into that category.
His final snafu is that he comes around full-circle to admit that the foundation of religious belief is faith-that which is believed but cannot be proven. Did he not just spend 5 pages attempting to prove that his god belief is logically superior to a naturalistic worldview? I feel as if I missed the middle ten pages of this argument and walked into the conclusion of a completely different one. He claims that by pointing out our assumptions, theists can claim victory over atheists, but all he is really saying here is that he has the opinion that we do the same thing that they do. If that's true, why is it acceptable for them and not for us? It seems to be a very odd contradiction to say that atheists are wrong because we work from our presuppositions, but then to base your own worldview on presuppositions. How exactly can you determine whose presuppositions are correct? If they cannot be proven, how can anybody know? Given his own argumentation, how does he know that our supposed presuppositions, while I don't believe that a naturalistic worldview implies presuppositions, aren't the correct ones? Can we not take every argument here and turn it around on religion with no difficulty?
To put the nail in the coffin, his endnotes declare that the true impediment to our belief is that we hate god. This laughable notion is constantly used against us and is by far the most ridiculous assertion in their repertoire. It is nothing short of an attack that attempts to discredit our use of rationality by claiming that it is an emotional issue at its core. If anybody is rationalizing their emotions, it is the theist whose fear of death overwhelms him to the point that he makes up fairy tales to assuage the constant anxiety that life in an unknown, unpredictable universe can induce. This article was a pathetic attempt to discredit atheism, or more accurately, scientific materialism, by ascribing to it all of the properties of religion. That alone is enough to demonstrate the intellectual vacuity of their belief.
You can read Alan Roebuck's original article, "How To Respond to a Supercilious Atheist," here.
You can read Kelly’s original blog post and other great entries at RationalResponders.com
Back to Top.
Exciting news! The Secular Coalition of America is looking to hire a second full-time lobbyist. If you're looking for an exciting, involved position promoting secular interests on Capitol Hill, this may be the job for you.
The Secular Coalition for America is looking for a Legislative Associate to lobby Congress on behalf of nontheistic Americans (atheists, humanists, and other Americans who do not hold a god-belief) on matters relating to nontheists' rights and the separation of church and state. The Secular Coalition's mission is to increase the visibility and respectability of nontheistic viewpoints in the United States, and to protect and strengthen the secular character of our government as the best guarantee of freedom for all. The Legislative Associate of the Secular Coalition for America works with the Director and Associate Director to craft legislative strategy, prepare policy materials, and lobby members of Congress. If this sounds like the job for you, view the complete announcement at http://www.secular.org/careers/legislative_associate.html. Act now – resumes will only be accepted through March 12!
Back to Top.
|
