Atheists and Agnostics: Not Republicans, Not Democrats. Independents.

October 19th, 2012 | Posted by Jim Cook in Democrats | Politics | Religion - (0 Comments)

“Democrats are the Atheist Party,” declares the conservative Christian website Greene Opinion. This is a popular sentiment in conservative circles. Is it true?

Chapter 3 from Secularism and Secularity, a research volume published by Trinity College that describes results from the American Religious Identification Survey:

Party Political Preferences of Atheist, Agnostic and No Religion Groups -- Chapter 3 from Secularism and Secularity

Democrats make up a smaller share of atheists than the general population, and are not an appreciably different a share of agnostics and “no religion” Americans than the general population.

What political group makes up a disproportionately large share of atheists, agnostics and people who say they have “no religion”? Not Republicans. Not Democrats. Independents. The religiously independent are also politically independent.

, , , , ,

Don’t Believe It? How to See Eddie Izzard for Free in Washington DC March 24

March 14th, 2012 | Posted by Jim Cook in Activism | Politics | Religion - (3 Comments)

What would you pay to see comedian Eddie Izzard?

What if I told you you didn’t have to pay a thing?

Don’t believe it? Well, your disbelief is kind of the entire point.

Jesse Galef of the Secular Student Alliance let us know about the deal today:

Eddie Izzard will be flying to Washington DC on March 24th to speak at the upcoming Reason Rally, a national gathering promoting secular values and political equality for the nonreligious. He joins other prominent nonreligious figures involved in the event, including scientist and author Richard Dawkins, television star Adam Savage of “Mythbusters”, and musician Greg Graffin of Bad Religion.

Izzard, who won two Emmy Awards for his one-man show Dress to Kill, has been vocal about his lack of belief in a god. Talking about how his views would affect a political career in Europe, he told The Sunday Times in 2009 that his atheism was “good, because you have to be with faith to get elected in America, but without faith to get elected in Europe.”

Izzard’s extended remarks on the subject:

His new stand-up show, Stripped, which starts a UK tour this autumn, began life, as many of Izzard’s shows do, with heavenly characters: God, Jesus and Noah often appear in his live performances, bumbling their way through trying to convert dinosaurs and working out how to persuade ducks to enter the Ark. He approached the show “hedging around an agnosticky kind of place. A lot of people stick with agnosticism just in case He turns up and says, ‘I was here the whole time.’ So you say, ‘Oops, and I said I didn’t believe in You!’ And He says, ‘Yep, you’ve got to go to hell for ever.’ And you say, ‘Where is hell?’ And He says, ‘Well, it’s just south of Croydon.’

“I was warming the material up in New York, where one night, literally on stage, I realised I didn’t believe in God at all,” he says, almost conversationally…. Post-conversion, much of Stripped is an elegant argument for the nonexistence of God. Izzard delves into history – via, he freely admits on stage, the good offices of Wikipedia – and tries to tell the whole story of everything without a God. “It’s not as bleak as that,” he counters. “I’m a spiritual atheist. I’m saying, don’t believe in God, believe in humans – is there a practical difference? I have faith and belief in people, and if there’s anything spiritual above that, it’s goodwill.

The Reason Rally — Saturday, March 24 at the Washington Monument in DC.

, , , , ,

William Lane Craig: Dancing Away from Logic on the 1st Page of his Apologetic

September 5th, 2011 | Posted by Jim Cook in Religion - (2 Comments)

In August of 2010 a reader, noting my disturbing lack of Christianity, suggested that if I only read Lee Stroebel’s The Case for Christ I’d see the light. Stroebel had written such a rationally compelling apologetic that the reader, a former agnostic, said she’d had no choice but to convert to Christianity. Although Stroebel depicts his book as building a logical case for believing in the divinity of the Jesus Christ character and aims his book at rational atheists, I found Stroebel’s book to be deceptive, one-sided and deeply illogical.

By December of 2010 another reader responded that Stroebel might indeed be a hack but that a reader “can go much deeper than this… you should pick up something better and read it.” His suggestion was that I should read books by William Lane Craig instead; that his words would be convincing.

So I’m reading Craig in his book God? A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist, and while I’m impressed that he gives space to the voice of agnostic Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, I’m otherwise underwhelmed. Craig starts dancing away from logical integrity on the very first page of his argument:

Does God Exist? In order to answer that question rationally, we need to ask ourselves two further questions: (1) Are there good reasons to think that God exists? and (2) Are there good reasons to think that God does not exist?

Now with respect to the second question, I’ll leave it up to Dr. Sinnott-Armstrong to present the reasons why he thinks that God does not exist, and then we can discuss them. For now I want to focus on the first question: What good reasons are there to think that God does not exist?

I’m going to present five reasons why I think theism (the view that God exists) is more plausibly true than atheism (the view that He does not).

Did you notice the two-step? Step 1: draw a false dichotomy, identifying only two alternatives when there are actually more alternatives out there (Sinnott-Armstrong brings this up in Chapter 2). Step 2: assert that we ought to hold one of those two alternatives as true if the other alternative seems less likely to be true.

Craig’s approach is faulty because there are actually more alternatives out there than to “think that God exists” and to “think that God does not exist.” To name a few, we could:

  • think that Cthulhu exists
  • think that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists
  • think that Brahma exists
  • think that a computer on which the universe is a simulation exists
  • think that we live inside a projected hologram
  • think that the matter of the existence of a supernatural God cannot be not resolved by people living within a natural universe
  • think that there is not enough information to know whether a God exists

These are all possibilities, some of them more likely and some of them less likely. But William Lane Craig asserts that the choice is only to “think that God exists” or to “think that God does not exist,” and to perceive that you must choose between one or the other.

If a car dealer approached you on the street and told you that you had to buy a car, and that you had to choose between buying an Edsel and a Yugo based on which was a better car than the other, would you go along with it? I sure hope not. The sensible thing to do would be to reflect on whether you actually needed a car, and if you did need a car to go research what other cars might be out there and what people had learned about them. You’d quickly find out that Edsels and Yugos are rotten cars and that there are much better cars out there on the market. If you live in a city, you might also figure out that it’s cheaper and quicker to take public transportation or ride a bike. Maybe that car dealer has been stuck with a load of Edsels and Yugos; if he wants to make a profit, he has to try and sell them. But that’s the dealer’s problem, not yours.

To “think that God exists” and to “think that God does not exist” are the Edsel and the Yugo on the car lot. The “God” character is supernatural, above and beyond physical existence, which is convenient for storytelling (because the “God” character doesn’t have to follow the universe’s rules) but isn’t about to be to proved empirically (because an entity that is beyond physical existence can’t be physically observed, and because the “God” character hasn’t been caught on film descending to the physical plane, burning bushes and hurling lightning bolts). On the other hand, proving that “God does not exist” is impossible, since the universe is gigantically huge and can’t be completely searched — maybe “God” is behind Saturn’s rings or in that gaseous cloud beyond Alpha Centuri or underneath a potted plant on a desert island — and since the realms outside of physical existence by definition can’t be searched. Proving that some entity doesn’t exist anywhere is a fool’s errand.

Reasonable people don’t have to wholeheartedly agree with either of his two alternatives. We can declare that we aren’t satisfied with the evidence for either possibility. We can look for other possibilities that fit our observations better. We can say that we don’t know.

If slick used-car sales logic is William Craig’s big introductory proof for the existence of God, the signs aren’t good for his follow-ups. I’ll keep reading, but my confidence is not high.

, , , , , , , , ,

Penn Jillette Slapped with Language Advisory in Video Questioning God. Why?

September 4th, 2009 | Posted by Jim Cook in Media | Moral Values | Religion | Video - (3 Comments)

A 2008 video podcast by Penn Jillette has been slapped with a “L” Language advisory when it appears on YouTube:

But I can’t for the life of me figure out why. This is what he said:

You know this atheism/agnosticism question has been continuing. I’ve got this buddy here in Vegas, Gail, and she’s been writing back and forth, and I think I said something that might make it very clear to me.

I see the question of atheist or theist as not “Is there a God?” because I suppose the answer in some sort of real, honest, gut level, the real answer to the question “Is there a God” either has to be or certainly is very reasonably “I don’t know.”

But I don’t see the atheist-theist question as being “Is there a God?” I see the question as “Do you believe in a God?” And that’s the only question I care about? Do you believe in a God? I don’t care if you know there’s a God. I don’t care if it’s knowable. But do you believe in a God? And I think in that sense many of your agnostics automatically become atheists.

Believing, I believe, is an active, is a verb, it’s an active event. And if you are agnostic, then you certainly — what God would you be possibly believing in: Jesus, Mohammed, Zeus, you know, Flying Spaghetti Monster? Always throw that example in.

So the question is not “Is there a God,” the question is “Do you believe in a God.” And I think that may be my whole distinction. My whole argument with agnostics might be as simple as that.

But the question is much simpler to me, and it becomes the only question that I want to ask anyone, and that is:

“If God (however you want to believe in God, I don’t care what it is, you make the definition of what that word means), if God told you (and you make any sort of way that is, whether that’s in revelation or however way you know or by scripture), if whatever your God is communicated to you that you were to kill your child, would you do it?”

And if your answer is “No,” then in my mind you’re an atheist.

If the answer is “Yes,” you’re dangerous and I stay away from you.

Penn Jillette is guilty of a lot of things in this video, including sloppy thinking (You can believe God exists but still tell Him to go kill his own kid for jollies, thankyouverymuch). But nasty language? He’s referencing the story of Isaac and Abraham, and you can find videos about Isaac and Abraham all over YouTube that don’t have a big “L” slapped on them. What am I missing?

, , , , , , , , ,

Democratic Party To Officially Oppose Nonreligious Americans

August 26th, 2008 | Posted by jclifford in Activism | Democrats | Election 2008 | Politics | Religion - (9 Comments)

According to the Constitution of the United States of America, the government is supposed to be uninvolved in matters of religion, and leave belief up to individual personal conscience. However, as of 2008, the Democratic Party will no longer support that position.

The Constitution requires that, in government, there be no establishment of religion. However, as of 2008, the Democratic Party will officially support government establishment of religion.

On page 50 of the new Democratic platform, to be approved this week, the Democratic Party officially goes on the record as endorsing the government “supporting faith-based institutions” and government programs to “empower” these institutions. A “faith-based institution” is a euphemism for a religious organization, like a church or missionary organization.

This plank of the Democratic platform supports government establishment of religion, plain and simple.

It also declares the Democratic Party to be an officially pro-religion political party. “We honor the central place of faith in our lives. Like our Founders, we believe that our nation, our communities, and our lives are made vastly stronger and richer by faith,” the Democratic platform says.

The Democratic Party is not neutral on the issue of whether you ought to be religious or not. The leaders of the Democratic Party cannot content themselves with saying that it’s not their business whether American citizens are religious or not. The Democratic Party is now dedicated to using its power to promote efforts to spread religion.

It is now the absurd, yet official position of the Democratic Party that it is not unconstitutional for the federal government to directly fund churches and other religious organizations.

It’s for everybody’s good, the Democrats say.

Well, it’s not for my good. Religion has hijacked the Democratic Party, and taken the Democratic Party away from the position of defending the First Amendment of the Constitution.

The official position of the Democratic Party, after the new platform is passed, will be that it would be better for me and my community if I would submit to a religious conversion.

I cannot accept that position as anything but a purposeful insult to me and to all of the millions of other nonreligious citizens of the United States of America. The Democratic Party no longer defends our rights. The Democratic Party is now set against us.

The reason for this betrayal is crass and corrupt. Evangelical Christians have more money and more organizational power than nonreligious Americans do. The Democratic Party wants to profit from that power, and so the Democrats are engaging in a repudiation of secular government in order to make evangelical Christians happy.

Atheists, agnostics, humanists, brights, freethinkers and other nonreligious Americans no longer have any place in the Democratic Party. We have been told to sit down and shut up, or to leave.

We must not sit down and shut up. So, it is time for us to leave the Democratic Party.

It seems that Americans who truly believe in the separation of church and state now need to work against both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. In order to do so, we need to become as politically organized and energetic as the evangelicals have become. Our goal: To be recognized as a constituency as important and influential as the theocratic Christians have become.

Three places to start:

- Coalition of Secular Voters
- Secular Coalition for America
- Coalition for Secular Government

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Barack Obama Gives Nonreligious Americans The Cold Shoulder

August 19th, 2008 | Posted by jclifford in Activism | Barack Obama | Democrats | Election 2008 | Politics | Religion - (0 Comments)

In this presidential election, Barack Obama has been pandering to religious Americans from day one, and working to get religious tax-exempt organizations involved directly in his political campaign.

Obama attacked “secularists” for trying to maintain the Democratic Party as a sphere clean of illegal infiltration by tax exempt churches. “Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square,” Obama warned.

Obama is bringing church-based campaigning right into the Democratic National Convention, with the first event of the entire convention being a supposed “unity” event:

“How do you kick off a week-long celebration to showcase our Party’s nominee, our strength, our diversity and our shared values? …the first ever Convention interfaith gathering — the first official event of the 2008 Democratic National Convention. See how you can join delegates, elected officials, clergy from many communities of faith and special musical guests as we gather in a spirit of unity.”

This supposed Democratic Party “unity” only goes so far: Nonreligious Americans are not invited. Ron Millar of the Secular Coalition for America wrote to the Democratic National Committee pointing out that “I have received complaints by people who identify as atheist and humanist who feel that this event excludes them as full participants in the convention.”

The Democratic National Committee has refused to even write a letter back to the Secular Coalition, much less to include nontheistic Americans in the event.

Imagine how it would seem if the Democratic National Committee made a European-American Inter-Ethnic Assembly the first event of the convention – and did not hold any event for Democrats of other ethnicities at any time during the convention. Americans of non-European descent would rightly regard themselves as excluded from full participation in the convention.

That’s exactly what the DNC is doing to non-religious Americans. Giving religious Democrats, and leaders of tax-exempt religious organizations, special access to political leaders in the Democratic Party, while excluding non-religious Democrats from that access, is not a way to demonstrate unity. It’s a way to promote divisiveness and discrimination.

The DNC put a Pentacostal minister, Leah Daughtry, in charge of organizing the Democratic National Convention, who declared, “For me as person of faith who has made God first in her life, it is symbolically important that the first thing we’re doing is coming together as people of faith to celebrate our faith traditions and to ask the blessings of God on us as we undertake this great civic responsibility.” Has no one in the Democratic Party explained to Ms. Daughtry that this convention isn’t supposed to just reflect her personal preferences as a Christian?

If the Democratic National Committee does not want to allow non-religious Americans to have equal access to the Democratic National Convention, then why should non-religious Americans give the Democrats their support? If the Democrats refuse to make an equal place for us at their convention, then the only place there is for non-religious Americans within the Democratic Party is the place of second-class citizens.

That is not a place that non-religious Americans ought to accept. As Barack Obama takes leadership over the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party is becoming increasingly hostile to non-religious Americans.

If the Democratic Party is going to be a religious party instead of a political party, then it’s time for politically aware non-religious Americans to leave the Democratic Party, and re-register as independent voters. Perhaps that will demonstrate to the Democratic leadership what the cost of faith-based pandering can be.

Activism opportunity: Send a message to Leah Daughtry about her decision to have the Democratic National Convention discriminate against non-religious Americans.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,