Labels Galore

We nonreligious have a remarkable number of labels with which we identify ourselves. I acknowledge that each has a unique denotation and connotation, that we disagree amongst ourselves what each one means, that we debate the merits of the options and that we often change labels, but the terms greatly overlap and tend to describe essentially the same group of people. Here is an incomplete list:

• agnostic
• antitheist
• apatheist
• atheist
• bright
• doubter
• freethinker
• godfree
• godless
• heathen
• heretic
• humanist
• ignostic
• infidel
• irreligious
• materialist
  
• naturalist
• nonbeliever
• nontheist
• nonreligious
• rationalist
• realist
  
• secularist
• skeptic
• unbeliever

We often subdivide atheism into at least two types:

• weak / strong
• negative / positive
• implicit / explicit

And we have at least two words to label those who used to be religious:

• apostate
• deconvert

If you have another fairly common label which I have forgotten, please post it in a comment and I will consider adding it to this catalogue of nonreligious labels. I have almost certainly forgotten one of the numerous names we call ourselves.

Neither Last Nor Least

Surveys indicate that approximately 15 percent of the United States population identifies as “non-religious,” making us the second largest group behind Christians, yet we're often listed last in most contexts, even by the most liberal sources. The list normally proceeds in descending order of adherents with the exception of the non-religious. If they bother to mention us at all, it's usually little more than an afterthought. I think this is wrong. The non-religious greatly outnumber all religions except Christianity combined, yet as a group we're hardly in the public's consciousness at all. I don't think this will ever change until we become so numerous that we're impossible to ignore.

The Concept of Neutrality

Many people fail to understand the concept of neutrality in church-state relations and I suspect most of these have never given any thought to comparing the various theoretical possibilities which clearly demonstrate it. They seem to believe that anything that fails to support their opinion automatically supports someone else's opinion and I think this is at least partially because they never stop to ponder the situation if the roles were reversed.

Let's examine the case of the motto “In God We Trust” on U.S. currency and coinage. When the issue of removing it arises, they see only two options:

(1) Keep the religious motto
(2) Remove the religious motto (and possibly replace it with a secular one)

They view the first option as favoring belief and the second as favoring disbelief. They don't see a neutral option and since there are more believers than non-believers, they argue that the majority should win. The problem is that they don't realize there's a third major option because it receives no support:

(3) Use an anti-religious motto such as “There are no gods”

With the full spectrum under consideration, they can see that the first option favors belief, the third option favors disbelief, but that the second option is truly neutral. It neither supports nor opposes any religious position. That the third option is never presented as a viable possibility doesn't negate its usefulness in demonstrating government neutrality.

The same principle can be shown with the issue of public prayer such as that at football games and city council meetings. The third option in this case would be to open or close the events by saying something like, “Since there are no gods, we have to rely on ourselves.” While I wholeheartedly agree with it, I don't think it would be appropriate to make this kind of statement in an official capacity at a public gathering.

Of course, many people who support government promotion of their religion have no interest in neutrality, but I honestly believe that at least some people who oppose removing religious mottos and public prayers simply need to be educated about the concept of neutrality.

Godfree for Three Years

Today is the third anniversary of my becoming a freethinker. In the months directly following my apostasy, I had plenty to say about my newfound freedom and peace. On the first anniversary, I wrote a thoughtful piece on an online forum reflecting on the many changes of the previous year. On the second anniversary, I wrote a simpler yet still substantive blog entry. This year I have very little to say because I have grown so accustomed to my situation, but I still want to commemorate one of the most important occasions in my life here in the most appropriate venue available. Here's to my intellectual freedom!

Prayer in Public Venues

This month The Florida-Times Union has published two articles, two editorials and numerous letters to the editor on the issue of prayer at public high school football games and other public venues. The original article which sparked the debate was about a high school football coach in nearby St. Johns County who regularly leads his team in prayer.

• 1 October — original article by Tiffany Pakkala of The St. Augustine Record, “St. Johns coach under fire for team prayers”
• 2 October — editorial by Ron Littlepage, columnist for The Florida Times-Union, “Christian prayers inappropriate at government events”
• 3 October — letter by Marcia Greer, “Public schools: Prayer is not allowed”
• 3 October — letter by Paul B. Schaeffer, “Football games: Prayer is not mandatory.”
• 4 October — letter by Bobbie O'Connor, “Public prayer: Guidelines are offered.”
• 8 October — letter by Chris Tidball, “Religious intolerance is blatant.”
• 8 October — letter by Carolyn Henley, “Postgame Prayer: Coach is to be praised.”
• 8 October — letter by Jim Reape, “Postgame Prayer: Coach is doing a fine job”
• 9 October — editorial by Sam Borden, sports columnist for The Florida Times-Union, “Public school coaches should not preach”
• 10 October — letter by David Schwam Baird, “Public Prayer: Infringing on freedom”
• 11 October — letter by Richard Kusnierek, “Majority rule not always proper”
• 13 October — letter by Sonja Harpe, “Church, State: Going too far”
• 13 October — letter by Harry Parrott, Jr., “Time out on football and prayer”
• 15 October — letter by Brad Howald, “Prayers at Events: No prohibition”
• 16 October — letter by Steven Eddy, “First Amendment: Coach has a right”
• 17 October — letter by Charles Collins, “Religion: Coach should be supported”
• 18 October — article by Wayne Ezell, reader advocate for The Florida Times-Union, “When prayer is controversial”
• 22 October — letter by Bryan Price, “Religion: Coach is the government”
  

I will continue to post updates until this issue passes.

Telling Others about Hell

Believers and nonbelievers tend to disagree about whether telling someone that they will be sent to hell constitutes a warning or a threat. Believers, convinced of the truth of their religion, feel that they must share this truth and attempt to save others from an eternity of suffering by warning them of the danger. Nonbelievers, unconvinced of the truth of the believer's claims, sometimes feel threatened, viewing the believers as the ones making the threats, using God as a proxy to express their anger and hatred toward nonbelievers.

Having been on both sides of this issue, I can sympathize with both groups. I know what it's like to be told that I'm going to hell, but I also remember what it's like to honestly believe that others would be damned and that I should at least make some effort to help them avoid that fate. I feel uncomfortable both with simply letting religious fanatics attack all of those who disagree with them while hiding under the veil of piety and with restricting the ability of people to express what they sincerely believe to be true. In the end, I prefer to support full freedom of speech as the law should never enshrine a particular viewpoint by prohibiting others from being expressed and discussed. Cultural conventions generally address issues such as this more effectively than the law, though I must admit that I'm concerned about the sustainability of informal norms in a socially fragmented and ideologically diverse modern society. We cannot, however, let fights over something as absurd as mythical torture chambers erode one of our most treasured freedoms by limiting what those who disagree with us can say.

Religion in the Business Section

Last week I noticed my local newspaper, The Florida Times-Union, had moved the weekly religion subsection to the business section of the paper. Since the publishers are rather religious, I'm sure the irony of such a move was purely unintentional. I open up this special section every Friday and I frequently close it in disgust. Of particular interest is a regular column in which they profile a local religious figure with their responses to a standard set of questions, including one which asks whether they have ever doubted their faith and another how they have resolved them. Their answers are almost as standard as the questions themselves. None has ever even remotely acknowledged that to doubt one's faith is merely to recognize that one is fallible. They have all demonstrated that they desire orthodoxy, not truth.

Naturalist as a Label

Although I've never actually disliked the term atheist as a personal label, I've come to appreciate a reason to prefer an alternate label: it's just too specific. Referring to someone as an atheist says that they don't believe in any deities, but it doesn't say anything about their beliefs regarding other supernatural concepts. Although they generally don't, an atheist could believe in life after death, ghosts, spirits, auras, astrology, numerology, karma, fate or any other number of supernatural entities or forces. In light of this, I have a theoretical preference for the term naturalist, but I have concerns regarding its practical usage. If I tell someone I'm a naturalist and they then ask what that means, I can explain that I don't believe in anything supernatural. If they don't ask, however, I'm afraid they will either think that I'm just interested in the outdoors, think that I'm a nudist, or simply not understand. I've identified as a Humanist in certain circumstances, but I feel this term simultaneously says too much and too little about what I think. I would really rather err on the side of saying too little and avoid mischaracterizing my beliefs, which are constantly being refined and reanalyzed in the light of new experience. I suppose that I'll adopt naturalist as my preferred label for now and see how it goes.

Truth vs. Orthodoxy

Although I have written much criticism about religious faith, there is one particular aspect of it which I would like to address today: Faith isn't interested in truth, only in orthodoxy. Believers are almost never encouraged to pursue their doubts, rather they are encouraged to overcome them, to ignore them, to banish them, to squelch them. They are encouraged to cultivate their faith and to pray for its continual increase. All of this says they are not really interested in truth, only in maintaining what they already hold as true. A believer may argue that they know their religion to be true and they are attempting to avoid error by fighting against their doubts, but they fail to recognize that the very fact that they have doubts is clear indication that they don't really know it's true! They work to unwaveringly retain a view which is uncertain in their eyes. If they were actually seeking the truth, they would examine all of the evidence, no matter how blasphemous it may seem in light of their current opinions, and make the best possible conclusion based on what they have learned. It's impossible to respect anyone's claim to truth who has not only refused to investigate alternate views but actively suppressed feelings that they just might be right.

Prayer & Miracles

Although I discussed the absurdity of petitionary prayer in my original essay against the Catholic faith, I have never written nor read anything about one particular aspect of this type of prayer:

Almost every petitionary prayer is a prayer for a literal miracle.

Petitionary prayer is prayer in which a person asks something of a deity, as distinguished from prayers of thanksgiving and meditative prayers. And it almost always asks for a supernatural, physical miracle. Sometimes this is obvious, such as when someone prays for a miracle cure from an illness, but believers never seem to realize they are always asking the laws of nature to be broken on their behalf. Let's examine a simple example, perhaps the most common type of petitionary prayer: a person asks God to bless them or someone else and keep them healthy. All diseases and injuries have physical causes whether it be bacteria, viruses, genetic defects, radiation, etc. When someone prays for health, they are asking that these physical causes not have the negative effect they would have had, or for their medical treatments to have a positive effect they wouldn't have had, if the prayer had not been said. For a deity to answer this prayer, it must somehow intervene on a physical level and alter the laws of nature. Even to inspire the person to healthier lifestyle, it must alter the neurons inside the person's head, again necessitating a literal miracle. Citing “spiritual” or “mystical” effects is absolutely meaningless because they can't effect physical substances without having a miraculous physical effect. If someone prays for a safe road trip, they are asking for the weather to miraculously change or for their equipment to miraculously function properly or for drivers to miraculously pay better attention. Even deities cannot give you a safe trip without doing anything.

The only type of petitionary prayer that doesn't seek a miracle is one that asks for something spiritual. If one asks a deity for forgiveness, the granting of mercy wouldn't entail any physical miracle. Even in this case, however, a miracle would be necessary to know that the mercy was granted, so even asking to feel forgiven is asking for a physical miracle, too.

I would like to end with a paraphrased quote by another user at an online forum which doesn't fit my theme perfectly but which is topical enough and which I found hilarious: “If prayer were sent by e-mail, you'd get a message back from your mailer daemon!”

God's Choices

Today I read something rather remarkable in the church bulletin from my parents' parish about the gospel reading regarding who will and will not be saved from the fires of hell:

If it were up to God, everyone would be saved.

If?!? The Christian God is supposedly omnipotent. He created the universe. He created humanity. He issued the commandments. He founded the church. He instituted the sacraments. He created heaven and hell. He forgives us. He will judge us upon our death. Everything is part of his perfect plan. How can one possibly say that our salvation is not up to him? I suppose one could argue that he grants us free will, concentrating on free will and ignoring he grants us, but even then there is absolutely no reason to imagine that we must forever suffer untold agony if we reject him. People who reject God don't suffer hellish pain while living. Why must they suffer after their death unless God specifically ordains it? It most certainly is up to him.

This attitude of resignation to whatever God has arbitrarily chosen to do as logically necessary can be seen in other areas of Christian theology. Christians say that Jesus' death on the cross was necessary for God to forgive humanity. Why? An omnipotent deity can forgive anyone of anything for any reason without any blood being spilled. If God chooses to do so, then it's because he wants to, not because he has to. Everything truly is up to God. You simply cannot justify the supremely hideous doctrine of hell by saying that God has no choice but to send some of his beloved creatures there to fry for eternity.

Scrupulosity, OCD and the Doctrine of Hell

For approximately five years, from 1999 until my deconversion in 2004, I suffered greatly from an obsession with sin, death and hell known as scrupulosity. The condition is usually considered a form of obsessive-compulsive disorder and is normally treated with counseling and medication. While I respect the general opinion of mental health professionals in this matter, I always insisted that my own problem was not the result of abnormal brain chemistry but simply of sincere belief in the teachings of the Catholic Church regarding the afterlife and I think that the almost three years of my life since then, without any belief in the supernatural and without the slightest hint of obsession, have vindicated that opinion. My belief that God might damn me to hell forever almost drove me literally insane and the terrible anguish which it caused contributed to my sustained antipathy toward the idea of the Christian God.

The Catholic Church preaches two entirely incompatible doctrines which led to my scrupulosity:

1. God loves each person perfectly and unconditionally.
2. God will damn a person to hell forever if they commit a mortal sin and then die without having confessed or at least having made an act of perfect contrition with the intention to confess as soon as possible.

It also seems that one must engage in doublethink to fully accept both of these conflicting dogmas and that my eventual inability to reconcile them in my mind was indeed the source of my problem.

Let's say that I'm not certain whether I have committed a mortal sin despite knowing that it must be a gravely immoral act committed with full knowledge of the intellect and full consent of the will. A confessor would most likely instruct me that if I'm not certain, then it cannot be a mortal sin and I don't need to confess it. The problem is that there is no absolute distinction between certain and uncertain in any of the three elements and I was frequently uncertain about whether I was certain! The prospect of literally never-ending torture meant that I couldn't risk even the very slightest chance that I culpably judged wrongly and that obsession was the only rational response to infinite danger. I was often told that I had to trust my current confessor absolutely, but my confessors had directly contradicted each other, directly contradicted official church documents, and even told me that I was right in leaving other confessors who had instructed me wrongly. I was told even more often that I had to trust God because he loves us, but it was simply impossible for me to really believe this. If he really and truly loved us, then he would never assign us infinite punishment for finite sins or make our salvation so heavily dependent on the hour of our death. I was told that I was wrong to view God as a policeman who is constantly waiting for us to do something wrong so that he can punish us, but the image seemed to fit rather well except that, unlike a policeman, God had unlimited control over me, my world, the rules and the punishment! I simply couldn't love a being who threatened me with eternal fire if I didn't follow his rules exactly and who would just completely give up on me once I died. The Christian God was a monster in my eyes whom I grew to fear and despise more and more over the years.

My scrupulosity was treated by confessors, counselors, and even with medication from a psychiatrist. Their assistance granted me a certain limited amount of relief, but it was always only temporary and my condition never really improved beyond being simply bearable. My deconversion, which included the rejection of the concepts of God and hell as absurd, on the other hand, resulted in complete, instantaneous and permanent relief without any counseling or medication because my obsession was rational and had nothing to do with brain chemistry or my “failure” to trust and love God. Here is an example. Like sufferers of actual OCD, I had an obsession with washing and cleanliness. The typical OCD obsession is based on the small possibility of becoming sick and the minuscule possibility of becoming fatally sick from lack of washing and cleanliness. My obsession was based on the possibility of sinning by getting me or someone else sick from lack of washing and cleanliness. The worst that happens with an OCD obsession is that someone gets sick or dies. Everyone dies eventually, so while it makes sense to be careful, it doesn't make sense to be so careful that it ruins one's life. The worst that happened with my obsession, however, was that I burned in hell forever and ever. It really would be worth ruining one's life to avoid an eternity of pain, so my reaction was completely proportionate to the danger. Once I realized that there was no danger of hell, however, I returned to normal immediately. I started washing my hands only after using the restroom and sometimes before eating. I could touch anything without worrying about germs. I could drop a cookie on the ground and eat it without thinking about it except to laugh at how easy it had become. That is simply not possible for someone with abnormal brain chemistry and irrational obsessions. Of course, I would argue that my belief in hell was essentially irrational, but my scrupulosity itself was a perfectly rational response to that irrational belief. The infinite nature of hell had completely disrupted my normal pattern of ordinary risk management and created obsessive thinking, and the church's liturgy had forced me to participate in compulsive rituals such as mass and confession to eliminate these obsessive thoughts. My scrupulosity was thus generated by belief in the church and was thus resolved by disbelief in the church.

A fundamentalist Protestant might respond that one's salvation is assured upon accepting Jesus as one's lord and savior. (As an aside, I don't understand why they usually think Catholics haven't done this except that they don't use those exact words to describe their faith.) At first this seems to avoid the problem of always having one's salvation in doubt, but there other problems which only become apparent upon further reflection. If one's salvation were truly assured, then they could sin with impunity without any fear of hell. Fundamentalists respond that sinning greatly would be an indication that a person was never saved in the first place. This entails that one can be mistaken about whether they are truly saved because they also might sin greatly in the future and therefore they have no assurance of their salvation! One cannot argue that they know they would never do that because many people have been very devout in their faith and then sinned greatly. I have heard of fundamentalists who repeatedly tried to become saved after sinning because they didn't know whether it worked the other times. Since fundamentalist hell is just as terrible as Catholic hell, the same infinite danger merits the same obsessive response.

Familiarity & Absurdity

I have become so accustomed to viewing the world without any belief in the supernatural and to interacting, mostly but not exclusively online, with people who share the same perspective, that I feel a certain amount of surprise and disappointment whenever I hear an intelligent and educated person express belief in religion. I remind myself that I used to believe quite sincerely and I cannot expect the entire world to have adopted as skeptical an outlook as I have in just the last three years. Even so, it seems so strange that someone living in the twenty-first century in a first-world country can believe that an omnimax deity is watching over us as we slaughter each other and suffer other innumerable tragedies, that unbelievers will be punished forever for honest doubt, that you can magically obtain what you desire by talking to yourself, or any of the other absurdities taught by traditional religion. I will probably always view such belief as irrational and ridiculous, but like everything else in life, it can only seem truly bizarre if one only rarely encounters it.

Ignoring the Problem of Evil

When I was a Catholic, I almost never thought about the problem of evil. I must have encountered the philosophical argument at some point and resolved the issue in my mind by concluding that God must have a justifiable reason for allowing suffering in the world which I just didn't know, but I can't remember it ever being an issue afterward. Now that I'm an atheist, I very often reflect on this problem when I see someone addressing some source of suffering in the world specifically from a religious perspective; I see someone perform some charitable work out of a religious motivation and think to myself, “Why doesn't their god solve the problem itself if it's infinitely perfect? How can their god inflict such suffering knowing the pain it will cause and realizing that the majority of it simply cannot be relieved by human effort? Why can't they see how much more benevolently they act than their own master?” Believers never seem to ask themselves these questions and I know that I certainly didn't ask myself them during my twenty-five years as a Catholic. They seemed blinded by something, whether it be love, fear, ignorance, laziness or something else. In my own case, the predominant religious emotion I experienced was fear of eternal torture.

Equality & Secularism

Is it truly possible for a devout believer to treat outsiders with complete equality? If a person honestly believes that their god will forever torture anyone who doesn't follow their religion, then it seems unrealistic to expect that person to treat them with any more respect or fairness than the deity they worship. If a person honestly believes that their god has specially chosen their ethnic group to receive special favors, then it again seems unrealistic to expect them to treat members of other groups with the same level of compassion as their own.

Social animals always treat outsiders differently than members of their own group and humans have more criteria than other animal upon which to mark divisions. Religion is one of those criteria along with location, ethnicity, language and culture, but it's unique among these in that it's irrational and, to a certain extent, can be moderated by education and social security. In order to build a more egalitarian society, the influence of religion must be diminished through these two means.

Perceptions about Atheists

I have come to the conclusion that the negative perception of atheists by theists seems to result primarily from interaction with two distinct groups. The first group is what I here term militant atheists. I fully realize that this term has been greatly abused by theists, but sometimes it's a completely appropriate description of certain individuals who are aggressively antagonistic toward believers without provocation. This group is rather small, but I can attest from personal experience that they in fact do exist and that they create quite an impression on the believers whom they encounter. The second group is what I here term delinquents. It includes criminals, thugs, hoodlums, hooligans, vandals and every other variety of habitually selfish jerk. Delinquents can be theists or atheists, but they are not representative of either group because of their marked lack of empathy. Theists often wrongly interpret, however, the lack of religious piety among this group as atheism even though it indicates only that they don't really follow a moral code, religious or otherwise. I believe the reason for this problem is that moral behavior is an inherent part of the concept of religious piety in the minds of most people. A delinquent theist is often dismissed as “not really a Christian,” but no one says that a delinquent atheist is “not really an atheist” because of his immorality. In fact, I have heard the exact opposite, that someone cannot possibly be an atheist precisely because he's moral!

I think there are ways to address these two sources of misunderstanding about atheists. First, although we can't really do much to convince truly militant atheists to calm down and relax, regular atheists can make themselves known as atheists. A theist who only meets militant atheists and a theist who meets a dozen regular atheists for every militant atheist will have very different perceptions of atheists in general. Second, we need to cultivate an image of a thoughtful, considerate atheist to correspond to the thoughtful, considerate theist that people already call pious. In order to do this, I don't think we can content ourselves with just simple atheism. An atheist is anyone who doesn't believe in gods. The word atheist says absolutely nothing about their other beliefs or actions and is no more useful than the word theist when referring to individuals. We need to move beyond our lack of religion and formulate what we do believe and value. I personally prefer the philosophy of Humanism, as I have explained previously, and I identify as a Humanist rather than as just an atheist whenever I can. It distinguishes me from nihilists, from postmodernists, and most especially from delinquent atheists. It says something about my principles and it identifies me as someone who cares about reason and compassion rather than just saying that I don't believe in gods. I'm not suggesting that everyone necessarily adopt this particular label, but I think it's a good idea to indicate what you think beyond your opinion on the single issue of the existence of deities.

Perhaps some readers will disagree with my desire to see atheists and theists in the same category, but I encourage them to remember that it's only with respect to their thoughtfulness and consideration. There is still a world of difference to distinguish the two groups.

Refusal to Respect through Capitalization

I consider myself a diligent and meticulous writer. I pay strong attention to detail, including proper spelling, capitalization, punctuation and various issues regarding formatting. I raise the topic because I want readers to be aware that my recent failure to capitalize the following words is a conscious decision, not a mistake made out of ignorance or carelessness:

• bible
• church
  
• eucharist
• mass

Capitalizing these indicates a measure of respect for the divinity or holiness for them, which I most strongly reject. I want to add, however, that I continue to capitalize church when part of a fuller title, e.g., the Catholic Church or the Church of England.

I continue to capitalize God when it refers to an omnimax deity, such as that of most monotheistic religions, in order to contrast it with a god of polytheistic religions. This does not indicate any respect, only that is treated as a name.

Fluctuating Religiosity in My Family

The world is always changing, but sometimes exactly how it changes surprises me.

Although my family has always been practicing Catholics who never miss a Sunday mass, growing up none of them was particularly devout or interested in religion outside of those Sunday mornings. As described in my deconversion story, I myself started to become religious around age thirteen and this devotion gradually increased for a dozen years until my deconversion at age twenty-five, but I never noticed any of them change at all during this time. Since then, however, I have observed that several of them have become more involved in their faith.

My father, who had always seemed the least interested in religion of anyone in my family, has been participating for a few years in perpetual adoration of the eucharist by spending one hour late at night each week praying in the chapel of their church and has more recently begun reading a book about church history. My older sister's change has been less marked and is not really unexpected because she and her husband have two young children. My younger sister's change, however, is the most radical. She prays often, reads devotional books, attends daily mass on occasion, consults a spiritual advisor and is currently discerning a vocation to be a nun! I find it notable, however, that she has never really sat down and read the bible. I recommended this to her because doing that is more likely to create doubts in the mind of a believer than any skeptical book, which she would flatly refuse even to consider anyway. If she decides to enter a convent, I will respect her decision, but I think it should be an informed decision.

Throughout all of these changes, I am pleased to say that certain things have remained the same. My family still respects my atheism, never treats me any differently and never raises the topic around me. I occasionally find myself voicing criticism of religion around them, to which they don't respond, but generally try to avoid doing this. They are remarkably tolerant of my opinions, but it really bothers me that the only people who really love me also probably believe that I will burn in hell forever after I die.

Thoughts on Unitarian Universalism

Readers will perhaps remember the account of my first visit to a Unitarian Universalist service at the end of January. Now that I have attended a total of five services, I would like to share my thoughts and explain why it no longer interests me.

The second service I attended was the following week. I found the sermon by a different speaker far less interesting and engaging than the first week. After that, I spent the next couple of weekends with a woman I was dating and so I didn't go. The third service I attended was at the beginning of April. I found the sermon boring and rather self-congratulatory. I didn't intend to return after that and didn't give it much more thought. A couple of weeks ago, however, I decided to attend again in hopes of meeting some new friends, despite my failing to have done so on the previous occasions, not because people weren't friendly and welcoming, but because they were generally older and married. Last week's sermon was somewhat interesting, but I didn't really enjoy it. Today I returned because there was a guest speaker who spoke about “positive atheism.” The sermon was mostly uninteresting, however, because I already knew all about everything he said, including the jokes and quotes. I don't intend to return again and I would like to explain why.

Essentially, it's still too “churchy” for my tastes, but there are several other issues:

• The general focus has been on liberal faith, not reason.
• The sermons have been mostly uninteresting.
• The music has been rather boring.
  
• The hymns and readings too often mention God or faith or simply make no sense.
  
• The sharing of joys and concerns is too similar to actual prayer.
• The tone is too self-congratulatory.
• It costs time and money.
  
• I doubt I would make any friends by continuing to go.

After leaving a service, I generally feel that my mind has been clouded with vague concepts and notions which make clear, rational thinking more difficult. It's not easy to explain. I just don't know what they're talking about half of the time and it hurts my brain. That is a common reaction for me to religion, especially liberal religion.

I am not seeking to criticize Unitarian Universalism. The society I visited was very warm, friendly and welcoming. They are not at all dogmatic. They do not proselytize. They are strong political allies on issues which atheists generally support. They provide a good home for liberal believers and even for some unbelievers. They are certainly the only religious group which invites an atheist speaker to give a sermon about atheism! I have concluded, however, that it's just not the place for me, which is really a shame since I would love to make some more friends.

A Failure of Imagination

The alleged resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is the primary focal point of Christian apologetics. Excepting various discredited relics which would provide only very indirect support at best, the only type of evidence regularly claimed by Christian apologists is the supposed eyewitness accounts of the event. Yet the arguments presented in support of these accounts rely completely on a failure of the imagination.

There are many lengthy books which go into great detail explaining why the accounts are credible and trustworthy. The authors argue that the disciples could not possibly have lied, that they could not possibly have been mistaken, and that the later storytellers and scribes could not possibly have done either. Can they simply not fathom any possible scenario in which a false story came to be believed? Can they not remember their justification for dismissing every other religion's alleged miracles? No, they insist that in this particular case, the witnesses are completely and totally reliable, despite scientific studies having proven that eyewitnesses are not absolutely reliable even in their individual, basic, short-term memories, much less highly controversial and politically charged group claims of the miraculous in times of severe stress and anxiety.

It is patently absurd to argue in favor of a seemingly impossible occurrence that we never, ever witness by claiming that other occurrences which we witness on a daily basis just could not possibly have occurred.

Religious Exemption to City Ordinance

Early last week I watched a news story on the local news about American Atheists suing the City of Jacksonville again. I haven't been able to find any more information, despite visiting the website of the station and even writing to the webmaster about the story, so I will have to summarize it from memory.

At some point in the past, the city passed an ordinance which made it illegal to give food to the homeless without a permit, to ensure that they were not given anything unsanitary. Either last year or earlier this year, a religious group complained that this ordinance interfered with their right to practice their religion which commanded them to help the poor. The city then revised this ordinance by granting exceptions for anyone motivated by “bona fide religious faith.” American Atheists subsequently sued the city for violation of the separation of church and state by granting this religious exemption. The story didn't say what happened because the case was not yet closed.

I have several complaints about the exemption. First, it gives preference to religion by waiving the application fee for the permit for religious groups. Second, it provides no basis for distinguishing “bona fide” faith from any other variety of faith. Third, it's impossible to determine motivation for charitable acts at all. The city should either revoke the exemption or repeal the ordinance altogether.

Humanist On Board

Last week I became a slightly more visible Humanist when I attached a Happy Human emblem to the back of my car which I had ordered from EvolveFISH.com. I generally prefer that symbol over other secular symbols because it's positive: it doesn't attack religion, it represents what I do believe, and it's actually rather cheerful. With respect to this purchase, I also prefer it because religious bigots are unlikely to recognize it and are therefore less likely to vandalize my personal property. I have heard about someone whose Happy Human had its arms and legs broken off, but I'm sure it's far less common than vandalism to Darwin fish. I haven't received any reaction from it so far and I really don't expect any.

The Science of God

Although I missed the original airing, today I discovered the video and transcript of a news story entitled “The Science of God” recently presented by First Coast News, a local television news program, about a scientist who claims to have proven not only God but Christianity with physics. The man is Frank J. Tipler and his hypothesis is the omega point.

Tipler seems to toss the word proof around without justification. His omega point is not an accepted theory and has even been dismissed as pseudoscience by prominent scientists. Furthermore, it depends on other hypotheses which are still hotly debated. Puzzlingly, he identifies a hypothetical future state of the universe itself as the immaterial, eternal, personal creator of the universe. In the article, he refers to three “hypostases” of reality, a supposed trinity which somehow “proves” that a historically-questionable, illiterate, itinerant Jewish preacher in first-century Palestine executed for blasphemy is the only begotten son of God because some of his later followers decided to teach an unintelligible doctrine that God is three persons in one being based on confusing and contradictory sayings patched together long after his death. Tipler absurdly compares the certainty of his conclusion that Christianity is true and all other religions are false to “2+2=4”. He also claims that Biblical miracles can be explained by physics, but the only hint how given in the video was the suggestion that since God wrote the laws of physics, he can change them at his whim. This non-explanation is the epitome of banality. I doubt Tipler's work has any affect on anyone who wasn't already inclined and acclimated toward Christianity. Tipler, for the record, was born in Alabama, was raised as a Christian and now works at Tulane University in Louisiana. It's absolutely no surprise that he doesn't now claim to have proven the truth of Hinduism.

News stories like this are standard fare. They champion the uneducated, simple believer over the arrogant atheist intelligentsia, supposedly beating them on their own turf and validating the believer's traditional (read: backward) values. Never mind that the scientist's hypothesis is completely unproven and his conclusions are patently ridiculous; the man has proven almighty God with math and science! Stories like this don't even register a blip on a skeptic's radar.

The article features a comment section which displays a disturbing tendency within Christian thinking which probably merits its own entry, that it doesn't matter at all why you believe, just as long as you do. Several posters made this remark and no believer disagreed. Admittedly, it makes some sense given that they believe you will be tortured in a lake of fire if you believe the wrong things when you die, but this doctrine itself is remarkably perverse and despicable. The further conclusion that reasons for believing something are unimportant is very harmful to rational and critical thought.

Perhaps Tipler will continue his research and will eventually discover which sect of Christianity in particular quantum physics validates as the one true faith. We all need to know whether to join the Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879 or the Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915 to save our eternal souls from damnation.

Godless vs. Godfree

People who neither have nor desire to have any children sometimes describe themselves as childfree rather than childless. While both describe people without children, the latter implies the lack of something desirable while the former implies freedom from something undesired. Perhaps we atheists should refer to ourselves as godfree instead of godless, despite the latter having some comedic value in its irony. As a novel word, it would attract as much as, if not more attention than godless and would indicate our opinion that we don't need any gods in our lives.

Incidentally, I am both childfree and godfree.

Religion and My Life

Although I live within the “Bible Belt” of the most religious first-world nation on the planet, I have realized that religion only very rarely affects my daily life. If it were not for my sustained interest in freethought websites, podcasts, organizations and books, then the topic of religion would hardly ever arise in a typical day.

My immediate and much of my extended family are practicing Catholics, but they seldom discuss religion at all and really never with me. My friends rarely raise the topic. My co-workers have almost always remained professional and not spoken about it. I see religious programming on television, but I just keep flipping through the channels. I drive by plenty of churches, but they're no different from all the stores I never visit. I spend money without ever looking at In God We Trust, not even encountering it at all most of the time since I use my debit card for almost all transactions. It's been ten years since I've been asked to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and say that this is one nation under God. I've only ever had one religious proselytizer come to my door, and although he was very annoying, the encounter was fairly brief and has not happened again.

In light of this, perhaps some readers will wonder why I am interested enough in the topic of religion to write this blog. There are several reasons:

First, religion is a fascinating concept. It addresses the questions of where we come from, where we are going, and how we should lead our lives here and now. I believe the answers that religions provide are almost always dead wrong, but they are interesting nonetheless.

Second, religion is the principal virus of irrationality in our world, affecting the majority of people around the globe and in my own country. This irrationality often leads to poor decisions, injustice and misery and I hope that writing against it will contribute, even if in only small way, to a better world.

Third, religion made my life absolutely miserable for several years before my deconversion. It was primarily through internet resources that I was able to break free from my old beliefs and I hope that other doubters will benefit from my own thoughts.

Fourth, religion still affects my life sometimes, especially in the area of dating. Many people refuse, or are at least reluctant, to date an atheist even if they themselves are otherwise essentially apathetic toward religion. I certainly don't expect my blog to change this situation in even the slightest, but it generates additional antagonism in me toward religion, motivating me to write. Dating is difficult enough without having to worry about irrational beliefs in invisible beings. Religion also still affects my life by affecting politics.

Fifth, religion is a topic that I feel that I understand fairly well and can discuss intelligently at length. It's something of a compromise for me between philosophy, which is too abstract, and politics, which is too concrete, both of which interest me to a certain degree but neither of which I really feel qualified to address. I simply enjoy writing and I have more to say about religion than about any other topic.