So, let me make my somewhat seditious proposal explicit: We should not call ourselves “atheists.” We should not call ourselves “secularists.” We should not call ourselves “humanists,” or “secular humanists,” or “naturalists,” or “skeptics,” or “anti-theists,” or “rationalists,” or “freethinkers,” or “brights.” We should not call ourselves anything. We should go under the radar—for the rest of our lives. And while there, we should be decent, responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them.Myers rightly takes issue with this proposal. This quotation was the first thing I read from Harris' address on the SKEPTIC mailing list, and I wrote this in response before I read his entire talk:
I disagree with everybody who says there's only one way we should all be.But then, after reading Harris' entire speech, I amended this as follows:
I have no problem with there being atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, naturalists, skeptics, brights, humanists (secular or otherwise), rationalists, and people in the closet or under the radar.
Now that I've actually read his essay, I do strongly agree with him that "atheism is not a worldview." It is a small but significant component of a large set of possible worldviews.I should add to this that in my opinion, the term "freethinker" includes a subset of theists (I am in agreement with Jeff Lowder on this point, though, unlike Jeff, I believe I have met such people, though perhaps I have confused some kinds of fideists with freethinkers), and I welcome association with them.
I went to my first atheist meetup group meeting a couple of weeks ago, curious to see what it would be like. It was the first meeting of a group of people who have different ideas about what they want to do--some want to be political activists against the religious right. Some want to picket churches. Some want social events with like-minded people. I gave my endorsement for the last of these, and further suggested that they be as inclusive as possible to bring together people from other existing groups in the Phoenix area--skeptics, humanists, atheists, etc., as an informal network to have events and let people know of what other groups are doing. The megachurches succeed by creating a framework in which there are lots of little subgroups catering to a wide variety of interests, and a secular community should offer the same.
Harris' point that "Atheism is not a thing" is the same point I made to this group--it may be that the only thing we have in common is a lack of belief in God. If the group focuses on that, the meetings will be as entertaining as a meeting of people whose only commonality is disinterest in watching spectator sports, who get together to discuss their disinterest in watching spectator sports (or worse yet, watching spectator sports to comment on how stupid it is).
Peter Williams' The Case for Angels is about…the theological rift between a Christian intelligentsia that increasingly regards angels only as figurative or literary devices, and the great mass of Christians who thankfully still regard them as real (a fact confirmed by popular polls, as Williams notes in this book). This rift was brought home to me at a conference I helped organize at Baylor University some years back. The conference was entitled 'The Nature of Nature' and focused on whether nature is self-contained or points beyond itself. The activity of angels in the world would clearly constitute on way nature points beyond itself.Can Dembski point to any genuine evidence supporting "the activity of angels in the world"? Does his "design inference" allow us to distinguish such claims from projection, pareidolia, wishful thinking, and delusion?Why is it important to know about angels? Why is it important to know about rocks and plants and animals? It's important because all of these are aspects of reality that impinge on us. The problem with the secular intelligentsia is that they deny those aspects of reality that are inconvenient to their world-picture. And since the intelligentsia are by definition intelligent (though rarely wise), they are able to rationalize away what they find inconvenient. This is what Bishop Sheen was getting at with the previous quote when he referred to the intelligentsia rationalizing evil, and this what Williams is so successful at unmasking in the intelligentsia's rejection of angels.
There exists an invisible world that is more real and weighty than our secular imaginations can fathom. I commend this book as a way of retraining our imaginations about that reality.
Recently, a hairdresser was arrested for performing cosmetic surgery on several “patients.” When this happens, the results are usually disastrous. Do fraudulent “surgeries” mean there are no legitimate cosmetic surgeries? Of course not.
Recently, a man and woman were caught trying to exorcise a demon from a little child in Arizona. The police found the three covered in blood inside a barricaded bedroom. The man died upon arrest. Do fraudulent, ignorant “exorcisms” imply that demons aren’t real and all exorcisms are bogus? You do the math.
A vast literature supports the reality of demons, and three criteria have been developed for distinguishing demonization from mere psychological trauma: (1) the universal presence of certain symptoms, including satisfaction of biblical criteria, along with responsiveness to the name of Jesus, all of which take place uniformly throughout the world, including cultures that know nothing about the Bible or Jesus; (2) the presence of supernatural power evidenced by such phenomena as moving material objects; (3) the revelation by the demon of detailed, private and embarrassing information about the exorcist in front of others that no human could have known.
These phenomena occur widely. In fact, in a recent alumni publication of the university at which I teach, the cover story featured faculty members—intellectually sophisticated professors with doctorates from top institutions—who have experienced such demonic phenomena. During an exorcism, one professor saw metal objects fly across the room. Another professor has seen this very sort of phenomena in his own condominium in conjunction with a demonized person moving in next door. During another exorcism, a different professor experienced the sort of embarrassment mentioned above. A demon accused him in front of the entire prayer team of specific sins that were detailed, including time and location. I know of others who have seen the same thing.
The fraudulent, crazy exorcisms are the only ones that get reported in the press, but don’t be fooled. The real thing is very different from the bogus ones.
It sounds like Moreland is inferring supernatural explanations for a combination of natural phenomena (perhaps a student accusing a professor of specific acts that had been observed, or phony poltergeist phenomena, usually caused by teenagers whose cleverness exceeds the observational skills of the adults they are fooling) and fabricated claims. Can Moreland even provide a reference for the faculty publication he refers to, let alone the "vast literature" that "supports the reality of demons" or the specifics of the criteria he mentions?
His analogy is bogus--we have ample evidence of real cosmetic surgery, including schools for it and doctors who can perform it on demand (for some cash). There is nothing of the sort for angels or demons, which are somehow resistant to the presence of cameras and skeptics.
UPDATE (October 5, 2007): The Pharyngula article linked from the J.P. Moreland quote above also links to a Biola University (Moreland's institution) article titled "Exorcising Our Demons: Many Evangelicals Are Too Skeptical of the Demonic" which includes this paragraph:Dr. Doug Hayward — a professor of anthropology and intercultural studies at Biola — team-teaches a spiritual warfare class with Arnold (New Testament) and Dr. John Kelley (psychology) — a class that considers theological and psychological explanations for people who believe they are under demonic attack. Over the years, Hayward has prayed with a number of such students. In rare cases, students have growled at him or become violent."People who believe they are under demonic attack" sounds like a class of people no different from "people who believe they are under the influence of CIA mind control devices" like Cathy O'Brien, "Brice Taylor" (Susan Ford) who are either delusional or simply lying. (I briefly discuss O'Brien and Taylor in this blog post on Kola Boof, who has made similarly outrageous claims minus the CIA mind control aspect.) There's a serious lack of skepticism problem here, not a "too skeptical" problem, and I don't expect we'll see these evangelicals make the slightest attempt to dig deeper or apply scientific methods of investigation.
When the Justice Department publicly declared torture “abhorrent” in a legal opinion in December 2004, the Bush administration appeared to have abandoned its assertion of nearly unlimited presidential authority to order brutal interrogations.But soon after Alberto R. Gonzales’s arrival as attorney general in February 2005, the Justice Department issued another opinion, this one in secret. It was a very different document, according to officials briefed on it, an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency.
The new opinion, the officials said, for the first time provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures.
Mr. Gonzales approved the legal memorandum on “combined effects” over the objections of James B. Comey, the deputy attorney general, who was leaving his job after bruising clashes with the White House. Disagreeing with what he viewed as the opinion’s overreaching legal reasoning, Mr. Comey told colleagues at the department that they would all be “ashamed” when the world eventually learned of it.
The above is just the first few paragraphs of the first of five pages in the Times. The article goes on to point out multiple instances of the White House saying one thing then secretly doing another, including re-opening CIA "black sites" for "enhanced interrogation techniques." The article ends with a quote from John D. Hutson, "the Navy's top lawyer from 1997 to 2000":
“The problem is, once you’ve got a legal opinion that says such a technique is O.K., what happens when one of our people is captured and they do it to him? How do we protest then?” he asked.The White House's tap-dancing response to this Times article can be found here.
Bob: You didn't approve/publish my previous comment responding to your Sep. 15 comment. I'll try again.In my first pass at a comment, I also referred to the "Jefferson Bible," a version of the gospels which Jefferson produced by (in part) removing all of Jesus' miracles.
Your citation of "In God We Trust" and "One Nation Under God" as evidence of the U.S. being founded on Christian principles shows your lack of research--the former did not appear on coins until 1854 and on currency until 1957. The phrase "under God" wasn't added to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954.
I also suggested you read more of the writings of Thomas Jefferson, including his letter to his nephew Peter Carr on August 10, 1787, in which he wrote "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."
Oh, and I also recommended that you check out the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, which was ratified by the Congress and signed by President John Adams, which contains the statement that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." Tripoli violated the treaty and a new treaty was negotiated in 1805 without that language, but it is significant that both the Senate and President approved that language.
I recommend reading the SF Chronicle's coverage of Winograd's book. If you're a supporter of your local animal shelters and animal control operations and they engage in euthanasia to make space for new animals, they deserve to be asked pointed questions about what they're doing along the lines of Winograd's recommendations.II. High-Volume, Low-Cost Spay/Neuter
III. Rescue Groups
IV. Foster Care
V. Comprehensive Adoption Programs
VI. Pet Retention
VII. Medical and Behavior Rehabilitation
VIII. Public Relations/Community Involvement
IX. Volunteers
A recent poll found that 55 percent of Americans believe the U.S. Constitution establishes a Christian nation. What do you think?Apparently he, like Rep. Ron Paul, missed the fact that the only reference to God in the U.S. Constitution is the reference to the "year of our Lord" in the date. The Constitutional Convention voted not to open with prayers, Article VI says that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States," and the First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation. But I say that in the broadest sense. The lady that holds her lamp beside the golden door doesn't say, “I only welcome Christians.” We welcome the poor, the tired, the huddled masses. But when they come here they know that they are in a nation founded on Christian principles.
Posts
All Comments
