The Atheist's Guide to Xmas

I found this over at the Richard Dawkin's forums, and got a kick out of it. Not because of the content of the article, but because of the replies on the forum. I will admit, I do sneer at faithheads from time to time though. It's hard not to when they display such hypocricy and staggering ignorance. But then, I've seen faith heads sneer at people who think the earth is flat, or that the Apollo moon landings were faked... It's the same thing really when it comes to the American Taliban (i.e. christian fundamentalists).

Atheism’s open-door policy

Andrew Brown is wrong: atheism isn’t about class. Anyone can join our club if they don’t believe in God

Ariane Sherine
guardian.co.uk,
Tuesday 29 September 2009 09.30 BST

On Friday, Cif belief editor Andrew Brown wrote, "It is entirely possible that Ariane Sherine's book on enjoying an atheist Christmas will sell this Christmas; but come the new year, it won't be found on the bookshelf in the toilet but in lavatories nicely warmed by Agas." His assertion is that atheists (or "new atheists", as he confusingly calls us – are we the ones who refuse to stay quiet?) are "educated and professional" snobs, and that we use our lack of belief as an excuse to look down on people who are working class: "Obviously, it is no longer done to sneer at the working classes for being idle, brutish, smelly, and breeding too much. But it's perfectly OK to sneer at 'faith heads' for all these things: that shows you're enlightened. It's pure coincidence that the despicable believers are for the most part lower class as well."

This line of thinking is puzzling and wrong on every level. The atheists I know have only one thing in common: we don't believe in God. Beyond that, there are very few generalisations anyone can make – our social class, ethnic backgrounds and political views are often extremely disparate (though there is a definite correlation between atheism and being a liberal – that is, believing that everyone has the right to do and say whatever they like and express themselves as they choose, so long as their actions are peaceful and don't hurt anyone). As he himself has come out on this site as an atheist, it is baffling that the majority of Andrew's pieces seem to lambast atheists, when the sole criterion for being one is merely accepting the truth as science reveals it.

The book I have edited which Andrew refers to, The Atheist's Guide to Christmas, provides a clear example of how different atheists can be. It features 42 freethinking writers (28 men, 14 women), aged between 26 and 79 – many of whom will have little in common other than their kindness and generosity of spirit (each has contributed their time and talent for free). Hopefully it will dispel stereotypes about atheist demographics: 12 contributors are from ethnic minority backgrounds, while four are from the predominantly religious US. Many of the contributors' styles and views couldn't be more different: from Derren Brown to Simon Le Bon, Charlie Brooker to Claire Rayner and David Baddiel to Simon Singh, there is a huge range of uplifting and lighthearted views and ideas for all readers to enjoy, atheist or not.

It is true that some of the contributors, such as Richard Dawkins and AC Grayling, come from very educated backgrounds (yet do not remotely fall into the unrecognisable description of an atheist put forward by Andrew); many do not. I have written before, in this comment on a Madeleine Bunting article, about my childhood and how it contributed in part to my becoming an atheist – and it wouldn't surprise me if many other atheists have had similarly tough experiences.

As book contributor Christina Martin writes in response to Andrew, "You've got me! The reason I am an atheist is not that I was brought up in a freethinking household, it's not that from an early age I realised the world was full of ills which didn't add up to there being a divine plan – my brother being born brain damaged, my father living every day in chronic pain. No, the reason I am an atheist is that I like to deride the working classes. Which is unfortunate, because half my family live on a housing estate in Elephant and Castle. Oh, and my parents struggled for money all through my early childhood. By the time I was a teenager we were fairly well-off, but only because my dad had worked himself so hard for us that he was forced to retire on health grounds. In conclusion, using lazy generalisations to accuse other people of using lazy generalisations is not only ironic but eminently foolish."

Lastly, though Andrew didn't mention this, The Atheist's Guide to Christmas is the first atheist charity book, with all contributor and editor royalties (along with the full advance) going straight to the UK's leading HIV and sexual health charity, Terrence Higgins Trust, which provides testing, medical and legal advice and emotional support to people living with HIV. Contributor Ben Goldacre suggested we support THT as he has seen the tremendous difference they make to people's lives in practice (and they also seemed a fitting choice, given the pope's unhelpful comments earlier this year suggesting that condoms make Aids worse).

Maybe if Andrew reads the funny and thoughtful contributions in this book, he will stop thinking less of us – and finally feel proud to be one of us. We can only hope.

The Atheist's Guide to Christmas is published by The Friday Project

Book Review: Rejecting Pascal's Wager

I recently saw this book, and thumbed through it. While I didn't have the desire to spend $40 at the time, I think it's a worthwhile book from the reviews I have seen on it. I was particularly interested in what someone who went to seminary said about it. Now keep in mind, I have not read the 652 page book, so this is entirely someone else's opinion of the book. In the chapter outline though, it seems very familiar ground. Things that have been discussed over and over again. Things that make sense. Agree with the real world. Of course, if someone is inclined to believe in magic, no amount of logic or reason will really penetrate, but there has got to be hope (I do actually tend to be optimistic at times). So, for skeptics, this book is a nice consice reference book for you and a good refresher. For believers, well, yet more things you need to make excuses for.

Paul Tobin's Book: The Best Skeptical Book on the Bible as a Whole

By John W. Loftus at 7/18/2009

Paul Tobin’s new book, The Rejection of Pascal’s Wager: A Skeptic’s Guide to the Bible and the Historical Jesus has arrived and I am very glad it did. It is the best skeptical work on the Bible as a whole. Gerd Lüdemann, author of several skeptical works on early Christianity, recommends it “with the utmost enthusiasm.” I do too.

Tobin’s whole argument is aimed to show that Pascal’s famous wager has no effect on us because we are not forced to choose between Pascal’s Catholic brand of Christianity and unbelief. Why? Because the central claims of Christianity are false. He takes aim at the Bible to show that while it may be a great work of literature it is not the word of God. And Tobin backs his claim up with his massive 652 page book, complete with a nice bibliography and indexes.

If you’re a Christian who has deconverted at a later time in life then you need to re-learn most all of what you were taught about the Bible. If you were college and seminary trained like me, this can be a difficult thing to do. So, you could go on a massive reading binge, spending many hours and a lot of money feasting on book after book. Or, you could read this one. Given that choice I highly recommend you get this one. Tobin masterfully takes us through the Bible using critical scholarship to show us what we can and cannot know about it. It has helped me remember several things I learned back in college and seminary but had forgotten. It taught me some very interesting things I hadn’t yet thought through as a skeptic, and I think I’ve read a great deal on the subject since my deconversion. Tobin showed me I hadn’t read enough.

It’s all here for the most part in an encyclopedic fashion, covering the ancient myths, the errors, the lack of confirming archaeology, the failed prophecies, and the forged authorship. He also covers the ad hoc canonization process and the textual transmission of these texts. Tobin is a very good guide to these topics, using the results of critical scholars whom he refers to time and again.

He writes and thinks well too. Take for instance Noah’s Ark. Tobin tells us simply that on the one hand “it is too big,” in that the structure could not be seaworthy. On the other hand “it was too small,” with not enough room for all of the animals it would have had in it. (pp. 75-77).

Tobin also spends a few pages effectively dealing with the minutia of numerical “contradictions” in the Bible, like the value of π (pi) found in Kings 7:23-26 (pp. 29-38). He even shows how that the evangelical New International Version has purposely mistranslated several passages to eliminate the appearance of difficulties inherent in the original languages (pp. 197-204).

And he addresses how the liberals view the Bible by concluding that they “did not reach their conclusions by abstruse theological reasoning: they were forced by external circumstances—the findings of science, comparative religions, enlightenment philosophies and historical criticism.” (pp. 187-196).

If you want to know why scholars think the Gospel of Mark was written first you may only need to read this book. If you want to know why scholars don’t think Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the authors of their gospels, and why they are written later than evangelicals claim, you may only need to read this book. If you want to know why the Nativity stories are fictions you may only need to read this book. If you want to know why scholars have serious doubts about what Jesus may have said, or why they doubt the Passion Narratives and resurrection stories, you may only need to read this book.

If you have only one skeptical book about the Bible as a whole this one is all you need. And even if you have some other books, this one will still inform you of issues you probably haven’t read up on, like it did with me.

Tobin did a massive amount of work here. I will use it as a reference when dealing with some of these topics in the future. It’s worth the price. I liked it so much I asked Tobin to write a chapter for a book I’ve been editing/writing.

LARIAN AGAIN: Well, a pretty good review from someone who went to seminary. I'll leave you with a final thought today though.

Why is it, that on nearly every moral change issue involving human rights, the bible has been on the wrong side? http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/fundamentals/bible_moral_guide.html

My Joke for the Day

I really don't have a lot to say today. Just had a nice day relaxing with my daughter. We saw the movie UP which was cute. Then did some shopping and stuff. Best stop tonight was Barnes and Noble. I have a couple book recommendations for you: A Long Way Gone and The Pleasure of My Company. Both worth the read.

Okay, now on to my joke. It's disgusting, childish, and even racist... But it made me chuckle!

I like my sex Korean Style!

Korean Style?

Yeah, I eat a lot of pussy!

See, I told you it was juvenile!

God: The Failed Hypothesis

Richard Dawkins and the other members of the so-called “Four Horsemen” of atheism base their position on the lack of evidence for the existence of "God", and admit that it is possible that "God" might exist in spite of the lack of evidence. Their position, stated simply (perhaps too simply), is that they see no reason to believe in "God", although they do not go so far as to say that "God" does not exist. Victor Stenger takes this view one step further, and says that science can establish that "God" does not, in fact, exist.

This book is properly seen as a follow-up to Stenger’s earlier book, Has Science Found God? The Latest Results in the Search for Purpose in the Universe (Prometheus Books, 2003), in which he examined (and dismissed) the various claims that science had found something supernatural or unexplainable that could only be attributed to a deity. In relation to that book, as well, this new book can be seen as a step further.

Stenger’s exercise is qualified very early on, as he restricts the "God" he is disproving to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic "God", which he defines as having the following characteristics:

• the creator and preserver of the universe;
• the architect of the structure of the universe and the author of the laws of nature;
• able to step in whenever he wishes to change the course of events, including violating his own laws;
• the creator and preserver of life and humanity (humans being “special in relation to other life forms”)
• endowed humans with immaterial, eternal souls;
• the source of morality and other human values such as freedom, justice and democracy;
• revealed truth in scriptures and by communicating directly to select individuals throughout history; and
• does not deliberately hide from any human who is open to finding evidence for his presence.

While some theologians would doubtless take issue with some of these characteristics, it is probably fair to say, as Stenger does, that these are the attributes traditionally associated with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic "God". Stenger does not posit that "God" is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent; such a "God", he says, is already (philosophically) disproven by the Problem of Evil. In any event, he does not need to give "God" these attributes in order to establish his non-existence, and the case he builds will (he says) apply to even an evil or imperfect "God".

Having defined "God", Stenger then sets out to establish that, in relation to each of the defining characteristics, there is none of the evidence we should expect to see if a supernatural being with that characteristic existed. Over the course of six chapters, he sets out in convincing detail what we should expect to see if "God" existed, and what we do in fact see. He bases his arguments on the most current science available, and always frames them in terms of the scientific method. While his science and philosophy are both sound (Stenger is an emeritus professor of physics and astronomy at one university and adjunct professor of philosophy at another), his language is always clear and understandable to the layperson, never getting overly philosophical or overly technical.

The next chapter is less satisfying, and feels somewhat “tacked on”, as Stenger tackles the Problem of Evil and summarizes both theistic answers to the problem and atheistic rebuttals thereto. This is a topic that really deserves a more thorough treatment than Stenger can manage in one chapter, and is not really needed in a book devoted to the scientific approach. He is not wrong so much as sparse in his treatment, and he does not give this age-old topic the full examination it deserves.

Having convincingly dismissed the possibility of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic "God" existing, Stenger moves on to ask what possible gods are left. Here he provides a wonderful and convincing argument against a “hidden” god – albeit one who is still “perfectly loving”. Similar to the argument from evil, the argument basically says that a perfectly loving god would not deprive creatures of a positive and meaningful relationship with him, so cannot exist. An imperfect or evil (or even just not perfectly loving) god, of course, is not excluded by this argument, and Stenger quite properly admits that such a god cannot be totally ruled out, but “that we have not one iota of evidence that he exists”.

Finally, Stenger turns to the question of how we should live in the godless universe. Again, this is a topic that deserves a fuller treatment, and one hopes that Stenger might turn his talent to such a treatment in the near future. In this book, he contents himself with pointing out the negative impact of religion on society (something several other authors have done better recently) and discusses how we can find meaning, comfort and inspiration without "God".

All of the arguments presented in God: The Failed Hypothesis (aside from the few quibbles previously mentioned) are cogent, comprehensive and convincing. They will be useful in any serious discussion of the existence of "God". This is a book that deserves a place on the bookshelf of every agnostic, atheist and open-minded theist along side Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens.

Book Review and a Comment...

For something different, today we have a book review from Dr. Phil Plait's excellent blog. Now, he may use some terminology that is less than kind perhaps, but I think it comes from dealing with the rampant dishonesty and lying tactics used by creationists in our school systems. I only recently got this book, so I am only on chapter two, but I really sincerely wish that the folks who need this book would actually read it. Add to the list, The Ancestor's Tale as well. Two books you all ought to read:

(Now, I tried to post this review on my local paper. Sadly, the system they use there is called Pluck, and let me tell you it's "plucked" up to say the least. That little introductory paragraph got left off, and I didn't notice it. Of course, since I link to Dr.Plait's excellent blog in the blogroll over at the paper, I'm sure someone would know for sure where it comes from... What happens? Well, one of the christians that posts there is instantly accusing me of nefarious deeds and calling me out in public... Such a christian attitude, wouldn't you say? And in the comments, I actually go so far as to thank him for pointing out the serious omission... I guess being judgemental comes naturally to them in that regard...)

Anyway, here is the review:

As an astronomer, my familiarity with the details of biological evolution are about on par with that of an interested layman (though being trained scientifically helps with that understanding, adding insight to the process of the scientific endeavor). I’m familiar with the concepts of descent with modification, genetic mutations, natural pressures for adaptations, and the like. I’m less familiar with other aspects, like allele frequencies, how specifically pressures can change adaptations, and what transitional fossils are in the record, but I can probably hold my own against your run-of-the-mill creationist.

That’s why I loved the book Why Evolution is True by biologist Jerry Coyne. This is a clear, easy-to-understand work that shows you — with no compromising and no backing down — that evolution has occurred, the evidence is overwhelming, and that no other explanation for what we see around us makes sense.

He goes through many, many arguments about this: how we do see adaptation to changing environments, how the DNA records support the change in the genome of life with time and environment, how fossils support evolutionary change.

Moreover, he shows that the scientific theory of evolution by natural (and in some cases, sexual) selection makes clear predictions which are borne out by observations. And on top of that he shows why these conclusions make no sense at all if you think there is some Creator that made us the way we are out of thin air (or dust, I suppose).

I was particularly struck by the concept of geographic isolation and how that affects evolution (perhaps because I spent more than a week last year touring the Galapagos Islands). Species isolated on islands adapt genetically and morphologically (or vice-versa) to the environment, and you can see how there are changes in those species as they radiate out to other nearby islands. We only see species on those islands that come from nearby land masses, as you’d expect from natural methods of dispersion over long time periods (but not what you’d expect for a Creator to simply pop life into existence). And all of this fits in with what geologists see by way of plate tectonics and continental drift.

Creationists love to try to pick apart evolution, looking at minor details in isolation and saying it doesn’t make sense. But they’re wrong: evolution is a beautiful tapestry, a complex fabric of countless threads woven together into a grand picture of life on Earth. And it all holds together.

I strongly recommend this book to anyone with even a passing interest in evolution, or the manufactured controversy of creationism. Coyne’s work is complete and convincing, slamming the door firmly closed on young-Earth creationism. If you have to deal with creationists in your life, this book is something you should keep very handy.

Bonus: my friend Joel Parker interviewed Coyne on his radio show How on Earth (you can get the MP3 through this direct link), and another friend D. J. Grothe interviewed Coyne on his podcast Point of Inquiry.

And I’ll leave you with this, Coyne’s perfect summation of the situation (from pages 222-223 of the book):

Every day, hundreds of observations and experiments pour into the hopper of the scientific literature… and every fact that has something to do with evolution confirms its truth. Every fossil that we find, every DNA molecule that we sequence, every organ system that we dissect supports the idea that species evolved from common ancestors. Despite innumerable possible explanations that could prove evolution untrue, we don’t have a single one. We don’t find mammals in Precambrian rocks, humans in the same layers as dinosaurs, or any other fossils out of evolutionary order. DNA sequencing supports the evolutionary relationships of species originally deduced from the fossil record. And, as natural selection predicts, we find no species with adaptations that benefit only a different species. We do find dead genes and vestigial organs, incomprehensible under the idea of special creation. Despite a million chances to be wrong, evolution always comes up right. That is as close as we can get to a scientific fact.