The following is an interview with TWF of The Wise Fool and Speaking in Foolish Tongues.
Before you became an atheist, you were Christian. From reading your blog, it sounds like one of the main factors of your current skepticism of religion was the lack of divine interaction. You honestly believed, prayed and listened for God--to no avail. What do you think is the difference between you and those who claim to feel God’s presence and have their prayer’s answered?
I don't think that there is much difference, except perhaps a slightly more determined drive to validate and verify experiences in the religious arena. Ironically, that was spurred on by fear of demonic influence (Satan always looking for ways to ensnare us) and self-deception (listening to my own little voice in my head as opposed to God). I never could really discern any Satanic influences, but as I grew to better know myself and others, self-deception was rampant, and not just regarding God. It is far too easy to accept your perceptions without scrutiny when they seem favorable to you; far too easy to fool yourself.
I asked the previous question because believers often claim that atheists have never opened their heart and tried to believe. They also claim to know more about the Bible than atheists. It doesn’t seem like either accusation applies to you. In fact, a close reading of the BIble helped you move to atheism. Was their any one thing in scripture that made you take the final step away from faith?
I'm an engineer, so you might think that the plethora of scientific data contradictions; creation of man, creation of multiple languages, creation of rainbows, etc., would play a major role, but they didn't. It was seeing God's humanity through Scripture which was the end for me. God wasn't some perfect, all-loving, all-knowing, benevolent but just deity, like I had been taught to believe. God was just like you and me; petty, loving, vengeful, caring, etc.. And when He dwelt in the negative emotions, which was often, He seemed to be the most pernicious person I had ever read about. At least, He would be, if He truly understood what we were and what He was doing.
Like many of us, your choice of church was led by your loved ones. Was there much friction for you adopting the faith of your significant other? For the other atheists out there, do you recommend they stick to their infidel guns when dating a believer, or should they try to share the church experience?
Fortunately, none of my loved ones were fundamentalists, so I didn't have any problems. They didn't seem to care what flavor of Christian I was, and just accepted me for who I was. As for atheists dating believers, it's tough to give a blanket recommendation because of all of the different varieties of both atheists and believers. However, two things do come to mind: One, when you understand our human nature, then you understand why people believe, and why they do so with such conviction. From there, you can have the compassionate patience to get you through any friction which may be cause by a clash of beliefs. Two, when it comes down to the activities which really matter in life, metaphysical beliefs do not really factor into your enjoyment of the time spent together.
You write a Bible blog with a skeptical eye. In your opinion, which book or verse is the most meaningful and which is the most nonsensical?
At the book level, that's mostly easy. Ecclesiastes is a clear winner for the most meaningful, despite the obvious and heinous God-biased addition to its ending. While many books have nonsensical parts, for the whole book I would choose short one of Malachi. It has similar content to other prophets, but what makes it stand out is that Malachi is the prophetic book which claims that Elijah would come back and set things right, and part of setting it right was restoring the Levitic priesthood, replete with tithes and sacrifices. It becomes nonsensical when you see Jesus claim that John the Baptist was Elijah, doing so through quoting a cherry-picked, context-neutered verse from Malachi. My choices change with my mood and current events at the verse level. For example, Jeremiah 5:22 is pretty nonsensical in the wake of the Japan tsunami. One of the most meaningful verses I had recently discovered was Psalm 78:39:
"[God] remembered that they were but flesh, a passing breeze that does not return." NIV
As atheists, we often talk about the harm caused by religion. What do you see as the primary benefit of religion, if any?
Religion has many benefits, for sure. As tainted as it can be with judgmental people fostered by the spirit of ultimate judgment, building of a community is probably the primary benefit to religion. In its best form, it provides the platform and the impetus to bond with people outside of ourselves, meet on a regular basis, and look after one another.
Who is your atheist role model? Why?
I've been kind of a loner, by design. As I explored the question of religion, I didn't want to be overly influenced by eloquent atheist scholars such as Dawkins or Harris, so I avoided most atheist outside influence, and thus never picked up a role model. However, I am in great admiration and debt to Steve Wells' work in producing the Skeptics Annotated Bible website. I dream that my own Bible book summaries on my blog would be at least half as useful as the site Steve has put together.
Is there anything that would convince you that there is a god? If so, provide an example.
I am a little less hard-lined than some atheists, in that I have little trouble conceiving of a real god (as opposed to God with a "G"), but such a god is under no obligation to make its own presence known to us (and seemingly has not so far), and it would not care whether or not I think it exists. However, I consider that such a god unlikely, and that we have a better chance of discovering alien life on other planets in my lifetime than we do in ever finding such a god. Back to your question, though, a personal appearance would be nice proof. :-)
Showing posts with label Interviews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Interviews. Show all posts
Monday, July 9, 2012
Thursday, July 5, 2012
An Interview with Vjack
The following is an interview with Vjack of Atheist Revolution.
You were brought up Methodist but if never really took. Do you think there is something fundamentally different about you and others who are skeptical of God compared to those who so easily believe? Do you supposed there is a skeptical or gullibility gene or do you chalk it up to upbringing?
That is a question I've asked myself many times, and I generally think of it from a psychological perspective. Is there something fundamentally different about atheists in terms of our personality or upbringing? This is an empirical question on which I would love to see some good research.
I would speculate that there may be some differences - not necessarily in upbringing but in personality or the interaction between personality and upbringing. The first sort of study I would like to see would be a fairly simple comparison of atheists and religious believers on a widely accepted measure of personality (e.g., a measure of the Big Five personality factors). My guess is that there would be statistically significant but not large differences. I would then wonder about using this as a starting point to determine the potential role of other variables (e.g., parental relationships, early peer relationships, critical incidents in one's development, etc.).
For me personally, I've always felt like the aspects of my personality that have been most influential in my arrival at atheism would include my introversion, intellectual curiosity, and tolerance of ambiguity. Some of these were likely inborn, and the manner in which my parents interacted with them was probably influential too.
In graduate school you had trouble accepting that you needed to be tolerant of other people’s unfounded beliefs in classes of “multiculturalism.” Do you think there would be more to gain stripping away such classes of tolerance or would it be better for them to continue providing some teaching of tolerance towards atheism as well?
I'd keep these classes because they are valuable in training helping professionals. If we imagine the damage a racist, sexist, or homophobic counselor could do to a vulnerable client without even being aware what he or she was doing, it is easy to see the need for such training. I vividly recall a peer telling a heterosexual client that he "seemed gay" because he had interests that she considered feminine. She had no idea why making such statements was problematic and was actually surprised when the client did not return and complained to the director of the agency where she was working. Developing awareness of human differences is critical.
What I would like to see in these courses is (1) the inclusion of material on atheism, and (2) a shift away from the celebration of religious belief as beyond reproach. Regarding atheism, I'd like to see students provided with accurate information about what atheism means and the discrimination atheists face. I think that would go a long way, all by itself, to helping trainees develop tolerance.
On the question of religious belief, I think it needs to be addressed in a different manner than what many instructors are doing. Holding a false belief may indeed be part of one's cultural tradition, but that does not make it praiseworthy. Some clients would benefit from changing or even abandoning their religious beliefs. While I would never advocate teaching helping professionals that this should be a goal in all cases, I do think it is a mistake to perpetuate the notion that religious belief is necessarily a strength.
You’ve been blogging for around seven years now. Since becoming an atheist activist, have you seen an improvement in rational thinking in America or are we going downhill? Do you commend/blame yourself?
I see positive change in the rapid growth of atheism, primarily fueled by the Internet. When I started, there were a handful of active atheists blogs. Now there are more than 1,000 just on the Atheist Blogroll. It is much more difficult today to imagine someone searching online for information about belief or non-belief and not finding it. Atheism is beginning to seep into the public consciousness, and that's a good thing.
This has not yet translated into large-scale improvements in rational thinking in America. I don't necessarily think we've gone downhill; I'm not sure we've gone anywhere. This sort of change is going to require a meaningful investment in education and continued activism by the reality-based community. Action is needed not just from atheists but also from anyone who believes that children should have a sound education in science.
For a new atheist, what would be the single best course of action to join the community, promote the cause, and take part in the Atheist Revolution?
There are so many different ways one can be part of the atheist community and promote our various causes. I'd like to see all new atheists learn something about atheism. For some, this will involve attending a meeting of a local atheist group. For others, this might be reading a book or a blog on atheism. Informed activism is going to be far more effective.
Once the atheist has a basic understanding of the issues, finding a way to contribute is easy. I think we often make the mistake of assuming that all activists are full-time, professional rabble-rousers. This is rarely the case. Atheist activism does not have to be time-consuming, difficult, or personally risky. Some will become politically active and inform themselves about church-state issues. Others will join national organizations that promote atheism. Still others will write letters to the editor of their local paper or to their elected officials.
If I could convince atheists of one thing, it would be that every little bit helps. Be active in any way that fits for you. Just be active.
As atheists, we often talk about the harm caused by religion. What do you see as the primary benefit of religion, if any?
Organized religion certainly helps many people find a sense of community or belonging. While it is possible to achieve this without religion, it is not nearly as easy. I would consider this the primary benefit of organized religion today. Religion gives people a ready-made community. When a believer moves to a new community, he or she can easily find a new church and gain instant community, immersion in familiar traditions, and a sense of being part of something larger than oneself.
The benefits of individual religious belief are a bit more difficult to identify. We could certainly say that many people find comfort in religious belief, but it is a false comfort that may impede effective problem-solving. It seems to me that religious belief often serves to shield people from reality. While I can certainly understand why that would be appealing at times, I cannot think of very many cases in which that is optimal.
Who is your atheist role model? Why?
I do not have an atheist role model, and I am wary of putting anyone on a pedestal above the rest of us. I've learned as much from my readers over the years as I have from any so-called atheist celebrity, and I find an egalitarian community far more appealing than a hierarchical one.
When I look around the atheist community, the idolization of people like PZ Myers baffles me. Yes, he probably receives more traffic to his blog than the rest of us combined. But I fail to see how that makes him any more worthy of our admiration than anyone else. When I see some of his more rabid fans blindly defend anything he does or says, I worry about the health of the atheist community.
I think it is great that people can go to atheist conferences and learn something of value from those presenting. There is no question that someone like PZ has some things to teach us. But I'm not sure I will ever understand why some people are so determined to be fans of those presenting.
Is there anything that would once again convince you that there is a god? If so, provide an example.
Sure. I'd need a logically coherent definition of this god so that I'd know what I was believing, and I'd need evidence proportional to what I was being asked to believe. Sound beliefs are based on evidence, not faith. If there was sufficient evidence to support god belief, I'm sure I would believe.
You were brought up Methodist but if never really took. Do you think there is something fundamentally different about you and others who are skeptical of God compared to those who so easily believe? Do you supposed there is a skeptical or gullibility gene or do you chalk it up to upbringing?
That is a question I've asked myself many times, and I generally think of it from a psychological perspective. Is there something fundamentally different about atheists in terms of our personality or upbringing? This is an empirical question on which I would love to see some good research.
I would speculate that there may be some differences - not necessarily in upbringing but in personality or the interaction between personality and upbringing. The first sort of study I would like to see would be a fairly simple comparison of atheists and religious believers on a widely accepted measure of personality (e.g., a measure of the Big Five personality factors). My guess is that there would be statistically significant but not large differences. I would then wonder about using this as a starting point to determine the potential role of other variables (e.g., parental relationships, early peer relationships, critical incidents in one's development, etc.).
For me personally, I've always felt like the aspects of my personality that have been most influential in my arrival at atheism would include my introversion, intellectual curiosity, and tolerance of ambiguity. Some of these were likely inborn, and the manner in which my parents interacted with them was probably influential too.
In graduate school you had trouble accepting that you needed to be tolerant of other people’s unfounded beliefs in classes of “multiculturalism.” Do you think there would be more to gain stripping away such classes of tolerance or would it be better for them to continue providing some teaching of tolerance towards atheism as well?
I'd keep these classes because they are valuable in training helping professionals. If we imagine the damage a racist, sexist, or homophobic counselor could do to a vulnerable client without even being aware what he or she was doing, it is easy to see the need for such training. I vividly recall a peer telling a heterosexual client that he "seemed gay" because he had interests that she considered feminine. She had no idea why making such statements was problematic and was actually surprised when the client did not return and complained to the director of the agency where she was working. Developing awareness of human differences is critical.
What I would like to see in these courses is (1) the inclusion of material on atheism, and (2) a shift away from the celebration of religious belief as beyond reproach. Regarding atheism, I'd like to see students provided with accurate information about what atheism means and the discrimination atheists face. I think that would go a long way, all by itself, to helping trainees develop tolerance.
On the question of religious belief, I think it needs to be addressed in a different manner than what many instructors are doing. Holding a false belief may indeed be part of one's cultural tradition, but that does not make it praiseworthy. Some clients would benefit from changing or even abandoning their religious beliefs. While I would never advocate teaching helping professionals that this should be a goal in all cases, I do think it is a mistake to perpetuate the notion that religious belief is necessarily a strength.
You’ve been blogging for around seven years now. Since becoming an atheist activist, have you seen an improvement in rational thinking in America or are we going downhill? Do you commend/blame yourself?
I see positive change in the rapid growth of atheism, primarily fueled by the Internet. When I started, there were a handful of active atheists blogs. Now there are more than 1,000 just on the Atheist Blogroll. It is much more difficult today to imagine someone searching online for information about belief or non-belief and not finding it. Atheism is beginning to seep into the public consciousness, and that's a good thing.
This has not yet translated into large-scale improvements in rational thinking in America. I don't necessarily think we've gone downhill; I'm not sure we've gone anywhere. This sort of change is going to require a meaningful investment in education and continued activism by the reality-based community. Action is needed not just from atheists but also from anyone who believes that children should have a sound education in science.
For a new atheist, what would be the single best course of action to join the community, promote the cause, and take part in the Atheist Revolution?
There are so many different ways one can be part of the atheist community and promote our various causes. I'd like to see all new atheists learn something about atheism. For some, this will involve attending a meeting of a local atheist group. For others, this might be reading a book or a blog on atheism. Informed activism is going to be far more effective.
Once the atheist has a basic understanding of the issues, finding a way to contribute is easy. I think we often make the mistake of assuming that all activists are full-time, professional rabble-rousers. This is rarely the case. Atheist activism does not have to be time-consuming, difficult, or personally risky. Some will become politically active and inform themselves about church-state issues. Others will join national organizations that promote atheism. Still others will write letters to the editor of their local paper or to their elected officials.
If I could convince atheists of one thing, it would be that every little bit helps. Be active in any way that fits for you. Just be active.
As atheists, we often talk about the harm caused by religion. What do you see as the primary benefit of religion, if any?
Organized religion certainly helps many people find a sense of community or belonging. While it is possible to achieve this without religion, it is not nearly as easy. I would consider this the primary benefit of organized religion today. Religion gives people a ready-made community. When a believer moves to a new community, he or she can easily find a new church and gain instant community, immersion in familiar traditions, and a sense of being part of something larger than oneself.
The benefits of individual religious belief are a bit more difficult to identify. We could certainly say that many people find comfort in religious belief, but it is a false comfort that may impede effective problem-solving. It seems to me that religious belief often serves to shield people from reality. While I can certainly understand why that would be appealing at times, I cannot think of very many cases in which that is optimal.
Who is your atheist role model? Why?
I do not have an atheist role model, and I am wary of putting anyone on a pedestal above the rest of us. I've learned as much from my readers over the years as I have from any so-called atheist celebrity, and I find an egalitarian community far more appealing than a hierarchical one.
When I look around the atheist community, the idolization of people like PZ Myers baffles me. Yes, he probably receives more traffic to his blog than the rest of us combined. But I fail to see how that makes him any more worthy of our admiration than anyone else. When I see some of his more rabid fans blindly defend anything he does or says, I worry about the health of the atheist community.
I think it is great that people can go to atheist conferences and learn something of value from those presenting. There is no question that someone like PZ has some things to teach us. But I'm not sure I will ever understand why some people are so determined to be fans of those presenting.
Is there anything that would once again convince you that there is a god? If so, provide an example.
Sure. I'd need a logically coherent definition of this god so that I'd know what I was believing, and I'd need evidence proportional to what I was being asked to believe. Sound beliefs are based on evidence, not faith. If there was sufficient evidence to support god belief, I'm sure I would believe.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
An Interview with Martin S. Pribble
The following is an interview with Martin S. Pribble of martinspribble.com. You can follow him on Twitter @MartinPribble.
Have you always been a nonbeliever? If not, what were you before and what was most influential in your change? If so, has anything ever tempted you to believe in a deity?
It depends upon what you mean by "non-believer". As a child I was told there was a God and a Jesus and that we should be thankful to them, but this mostly came from the society around me and my extended family, not from my parents, in the form of prayer at family meals like Thanks Giving and Christmas. My mother an father came from scientific schools of thought, mother studying physiotherapy and my father fresh-water biology, so the scientific method was something they had to employ in their daily working lives. This trickled down to my brother and I as we were growing up. They always supported us to think critically about the things presented to us, and later in life have come out to me as atheists, both independently of the other.
Probably the closest I ever was to a "believer" of any kind was a bit of a new-age hippy in my teen years. Most of this was due to ascribing too much to weight to things like commonality of being human, happenstance and coincidence, and an ignorance of what mechanisms are actually in place when dealing with each other and the world at large. When I learned more about human psychology and the physical sciences, 99% of this was thrown out the window. I became agnostic (always was really), but still hadn't made the logical jump to "atheist" at this stage. It wasn't until I read "The God Delusion" that I gained the courage and insight I needed to become atheist proper. So the journey was a series of small steps, from being told to believe, to being free to explore, to coming to the eventual conclusion that there is no reason to believe in any gods.
In terms of belief in any particular deity, maybe the closest I came was thinking that there was a Gaia or universe god, which was actually the universe itself. Almost deistic, but probably a lazy and disconnected version of such. I became much more rigorous in my questioning as I have grown older.
Everything about your blog screams “well-read”--from the informed opinions within the articles, to the back-cover style testimonials, to the “Reading” tab linking to books you’ve enjoyed. If you could offer one book to a person who is starting to doubt their faith, what would it be and why?
Firstly, thank you for the praise. I really just consider it my ramblings, and am pretty happy that people like to read it. I try to be as even and informed as possible, and I'm glad that this comes through in my writing.
If there was one book for people to start doubting their faith, the best for me would be Joseph Campbell's The Hero With A Thousand Faces. While this book doesn't seek to discredit religion per se, it does a great job of showing that the stories of Jesus, Krishna, and any other deity all are rooted in a similar structure, what Carl Jung would call "Archetypes". These archetypes are each very similar in many ways, including the journey these religious heroes and mythical characters take on their paths to enlightenment. It even draws on popular cultural references, such as the journey of Luke Skywalker in the Star Wars series, and even The Lion King, to show that this story structure still resonates with us today as it did with Homer's Odyssey. Once a person has this perspective on these, the most powerful stories in human history, the whole Jesus myth starts to fade into just another story. For me, this book was one of the first that started me on my journey of discovery.
Along with your blog posts, you are very prolific on Twitter. Coming in at over 87,000 tweets, it’s clear that you do more than simply promote your blog on social networks. How do you use Twitter and what kinds of people do you most interact with?
For me, Twitter is a communication tool, a place to promote my blog, to promote ideas, to inform others of breaking news, to ask for references for certain questions I may have for research purposes, and also a place for me to clown around with others and have a little fun. It's an open forum, so anything goes as far as I'm concerned. I get a lot of information about home-brewing, rock climbing, cooking etc, as well as just have conversations with people. I love it.
To be fair, I mostly do interact with atheists and agnostics, though sometimes I find myself compelled to answer some of the more bizarre notions of theists on there. I try not to as it can be annoying for others who follow my timeline, but sometimes I can't help myself. I guess I have a low tolerance for bullshit.
As someone who has taken part in atheist conventions, what would you say is the primary value in attending? Who was your favorite speaker?
I have attended to Global Atheist Conventions, and one convention that was not primarily "atheistic" in nature, but which had a more skeptical bent, called Think Inc. Each of these conventions were great, and I had such fun that I will definitely attend more.
The biggest value for me in attending these conferences is the exchange of ideas. Not only during the talks, but between and afterwards also. The people I've met at these events continue to be friends long after the event is over, and some have become very dear to me indeed.
Thus far my favourite speaker has been Sam Harris. He's somewhat of a hero of mine, because he openly challenges people's views on certain aspects of human existence, and is so calm, so poised when presented with the likes of William Lane Craig or Deepak Chopra. He manages to call people out on their inconsistencies and incongruities without resorting to being rude or losing his cool. I was lucky enough to see him speak at the recent Global Atheist Convention here in Melbourne, where he made the bold move of showing a group of 4000 atheists that meditation had some merit, by example no less. I don't agree with everything he says, but he is probably the most intellectually honest speaker of his kind today.
As atheists, we often talk about the harm caused by religion. What do you see as the primary benefit of religion, if any?
I don't think religion has any benefit to society at large. I think the positive elements that religion could offer are all too easily taken advantage of by those who are given a special place of privilege within the religious ranks. We see this again and again, in everything from abuse claims by the clergy, to the evangelical ministers of mega-churches, to the political sway of imams in the Middle-East, to the "war on women" being waged in the USA. What could be positive, the sense of community and having a place of refuge from the ravages of the outside world, has been usurped by divisiveness and opportunism, and this I feel will be the ultimate downfall of organised religions.
The benefit I do see is the one felt by the believer on a personal level. Some people are quite fine to believe within their own lives, regardless of any cognitive dissonance they may feel when their beliefs are questioned. It's true that it allows people to get on with their lives, especially in situations where they've lost a loved-one. It's easier for the griever to believe that they will be with their loved one once again in heaven, than to deal with the pain of the finality of death. I've seen this in my own life, in family members etcetera. For me however I'd rather know reality than kid myself into some kind of comforting delusion. To quote Carl Sagan "For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
Who is your atheist role model? Why?
I don't really have a single role model. As I said, I really admire Sam Harris, but I don't always agree with him. I often look to the women of the movement for views that I might now see as often being shown by the men of the atheism. Harris, Shermer, Hitchens, Dawkins, PZ Myers, and then some of the less "atheist" atheists and agnostics like Steven Pinker, Geoffrey Robertson, Carl Sagan, etcetera. I know so many women that inspire my work; Monica Salcedo, Emily Dietle, Greta Christina, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Soraya Chemaly, as well as many whose words are less well known. If I didn't have so many topics to talk about in the spheres of religion and belief, I would undoubtedly be a full-time feminist activist. But when it comes down to it, I take the things I like from whomever I like. I don;t really follow any one person's ideals to a tee.
Is there anything that would convince you that there is a god? If so, provide an example.
That would be a difficult task indeed. If a being came out of the sky and proclaimed in a booming voice "I AM GOD!" and then proceeded perform miracle after miracle, I'd still be skeptical. This about it, if you were to go back to the day 200 BC and produce a box of matches from your jacket, the people of the day would think it was magic. The third of Arthur C Clarke's laws states "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." I would think this were the case if any sentient being were to proclaim itself to be God. The problem of proving god is first that the idea of a creature being required to create the universe is so unbelievable in the first place that I would find my skepticism would take precedence over any notion of a god.
The only way i could see it happening would be by involuntary brainwashing or mind-control. It is always possible that an advanced technology could have worked out a way to control the minds of the masses, and could use this to their advantage. It is quite feasible that such an advanced civilisation could see that enslavement of the entire human race, using concepts designed to fit within already existing human archetypes and belief systems, would be a relatively easy feat. I mean, people already willingly believe that a magical dead carpenter can bend reality enough to make his face appear, for nor reason, in the melted pieces of cheese in a piece of toast, so imagine how easy it would be to conquer the earth with the level of gullibility we already show.
The other way I may come to believe a god exists is through brain injury or trauma. I don't think that in my current state of understanding of the universe that any other possibility is feasible.
Have you always been a nonbeliever? If not, what were you before and what was most influential in your change? If so, has anything ever tempted you to believe in a deity?
It depends upon what you mean by "non-believer". As a child I was told there was a God and a Jesus and that we should be thankful to them, but this mostly came from the society around me and my extended family, not from my parents, in the form of prayer at family meals like Thanks Giving and Christmas. My mother an father came from scientific schools of thought, mother studying physiotherapy and my father fresh-water biology, so the scientific method was something they had to employ in their daily working lives. This trickled down to my brother and I as we were growing up. They always supported us to think critically about the things presented to us, and later in life have come out to me as atheists, both independently of the other.
Probably the closest I ever was to a "believer" of any kind was a bit of a new-age hippy in my teen years. Most of this was due to ascribing too much to weight to things like commonality of being human, happenstance and coincidence, and an ignorance of what mechanisms are actually in place when dealing with each other and the world at large. When I learned more about human psychology and the physical sciences, 99% of this was thrown out the window. I became agnostic (always was really), but still hadn't made the logical jump to "atheist" at this stage. It wasn't until I read "The God Delusion" that I gained the courage and insight I needed to become atheist proper. So the journey was a series of small steps, from being told to believe, to being free to explore, to coming to the eventual conclusion that there is no reason to believe in any gods.
In terms of belief in any particular deity, maybe the closest I came was thinking that there was a Gaia or universe god, which was actually the universe itself. Almost deistic, but probably a lazy and disconnected version of such. I became much more rigorous in my questioning as I have grown older.
Everything about your blog screams “well-read”--from the informed opinions within the articles, to the back-cover style testimonials, to the “Reading” tab linking to books you’ve enjoyed. If you could offer one book to a person who is starting to doubt their faith, what would it be and why?
Firstly, thank you for the praise. I really just consider it my ramblings, and am pretty happy that people like to read it. I try to be as even and informed as possible, and I'm glad that this comes through in my writing.
If there was one book for people to start doubting their faith, the best for me would be Joseph Campbell's The Hero With A Thousand Faces. While this book doesn't seek to discredit religion per se, it does a great job of showing that the stories of Jesus, Krishna, and any other deity all are rooted in a similar structure, what Carl Jung would call "Archetypes". These archetypes are each very similar in many ways, including the journey these religious heroes and mythical characters take on their paths to enlightenment. It even draws on popular cultural references, such as the journey of Luke Skywalker in the Star Wars series, and even The Lion King, to show that this story structure still resonates with us today as it did with Homer's Odyssey. Once a person has this perspective on these, the most powerful stories in human history, the whole Jesus myth starts to fade into just another story. For me, this book was one of the first that started me on my journey of discovery.
Along with your blog posts, you are very prolific on Twitter. Coming in at over 87,000 tweets, it’s clear that you do more than simply promote your blog on social networks. How do you use Twitter and what kinds of people do you most interact with?
For me, Twitter is a communication tool, a place to promote my blog, to promote ideas, to inform others of breaking news, to ask for references for certain questions I may have for research purposes, and also a place for me to clown around with others and have a little fun. It's an open forum, so anything goes as far as I'm concerned. I get a lot of information about home-brewing, rock climbing, cooking etc, as well as just have conversations with people. I love it.
To be fair, I mostly do interact with atheists and agnostics, though sometimes I find myself compelled to answer some of the more bizarre notions of theists on there. I try not to as it can be annoying for others who follow my timeline, but sometimes I can't help myself. I guess I have a low tolerance for bullshit.
As someone who has taken part in atheist conventions, what would you say is the primary value in attending? Who was your favorite speaker?
I have attended to Global Atheist Conventions, and one convention that was not primarily "atheistic" in nature, but which had a more skeptical bent, called Think Inc. Each of these conventions were great, and I had such fun that I will definitely attend more.
The biggest value for me in attending these conferences is the exchange of ideas. Not only during the talks, but between and afterwards also. The people I've met at these events continue to be friends long after the event is over, and some have become very dear to me indeed.
Thus far my favourite speaker has been Sam Harris. He's somewhat of a hero of mine, because he openly challenges people's views on certain aspects of human existence, and is so calm, so poised when presented with the likes of William Lane Craig or Deepak Chopra. He manages to call people out on their inconsistencies and incongruities without resorting to being rude or losing his cool. I was lucky enough to see him speak at the recent Global Atheist Convention here in Melbourne, where he made the bold move of showing a group of 4000 atheists that meditation had some merit, by example no less. I don't agree with everything he says, but he is probably the most intellectually honest speaker of his kind today.
As atheists, we often talk about the harm caused by religion. What do you see as the primary benefit of religion, if any?
I don't think religion has any benefit to society at large. I think the positive elements that religion could offer are all too easily taken advantage of by those who are given a special place of privilege within the religious ranks. We see this again and again, in everything from abuse claims by the clergy, to the evangelical ministers of mega-churches, to the political sway of imams in the Middle-East, to the "war on women" being waged in the USA. What could be positive, the sense of community and having a place of refuge from the ravages of the outside world, has been usurped by divisiveness and opportunism, and this I feel will be the ultimate downfall of organised religions.
The benefit I do see is the one felt by the believer on a personal level. Some people are quite fine to believe within their own lives, regardless of any cognitive dissonance they may feel when their beliefs are questioned. It's true that it allows people to get on with their lives, especially in situations where they've lost a loved-one. It's easier for the griever to believe that they will be with their loved one once again in heaven, than to deal with the pain of the finality of death. I've seen this in my own life, in family members etcetera. For me however I'd rather know reality than kid myself into some kind of comforting delusion. To quote Carl Sagan "For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
Who is your atheist role model? Why?
I don't really have a single role model. As I said, I really admire Sam Harris, but I don't always agree with him. I often look to the women of the movement for views that I might now see as often being shown by the men of the atheism. Harris, Shermer, Hitchens, Dawkins, PZ Myers, and then some of the less "atheist" atheists and agnostics like Steven Pinker, Geoffrey Robertson, Carl Sagan, etcetera. I know so many women that inspire my work; Monica Salcedo, Emily Dietle, Greta Christina, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Soraya Chemaly, as well as many whose words are less well known. If I didn't have so many topics to talk about in the spheres of religion and belief, I would undoubtedly be a full-time feminist activist. But when it comes down to it, I take the things I like from whomever I like. I don;t really follow any one person's ideals to a tee.
Is there anything that would convince you that there is a god? If so, provide an example.
That would be a difficult task indeed. If a being came out of the sky and proclaimed in a booming voice "I AM GOD!" and then proceeded perform miracle after miracle, I'd still be skeptical. This about it, if you were to go back to the day 200 BC and produce a box of matches from your jacket, the people of the day would think it was magic. The third of Arthur C Clarke's laws states "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." I would think this were the case if any sentient being were to proclaim itself to be God. The problem of proving god is first that the idea of a creature being required to create the universe is so unbelievable in the first place that I would find my skepticism would take precedence over any notion of a god.
The only way i could see it happening would be by involuntary brainwashing or mind-control. It is always possible that an advanced technology could have worked out a way to control the minds of the masses, and could use this to their advantage. It is quite feasible that such an advanced civilisation could see that enslavement of the entire human race, using concepts designed to fit within already existing human archetypes and belief systems, would be a relatively easy feat. I mean, people already willingly believe that a magical dead carpenter can bend reality enough to make his face appear, for nor reason, in the melted pieces of cheese in a piece of toast, so imagine how easy it would be to conquer the earth with the level of gullibility we already show.
The other way I may come to believe a god exists is through brain injury or trauma. I don't think that in my current state of understanding of the universe that any other possibility is feasible.
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
An Interview with Infidel753
The following is an interview with Infidel753, the writer of the blog of the same name...obviously.
On your blog you say “that it has been my great fortune to live my whole life free of ‘spiritual’ concepts of any kind.” Do you contribute your immunity to religious B.S. to your skeptical character, or your upbringing? How might you tell that you are an infidel by nature or nurture?
Definitely upbringing. My parents were immigrants from Britain and, like most British people, not religious. They never tried to indoctrinate me as an atheist, they just didn't emphasize the whole subject. I was given a kids' book of Bible stories, but never told it had any different status than Aesop or Little Red Riding Hood or any other fantasy-type story. I barely had much sense of what religion was until well into my teens, and I viewed it just as a phenomenon within anthropology and history.
I reject the idea that any person is a believer or unbeliever "by nature" in the sense of something innate. Anyone could be either, depending on circumstances.
You identify as a transhumanist. If you could sign-up for one technological improvement that might be available in the next hundred years (if not now) what would it be?
Radical life extension. The longer I'm around, the more other innovations I'll be there to experience -- including yet further progress in life extension. Death has always been humanity's greatest enemy, and the total defeat and eradication of death is the highest and noblest goal we can pursue.
Aside from that, full-immersion virtual reality. An unlimited range of experience -- eventually not restricted even by the extremely limited range of senses evolution has given our physical bodies.
The tagline for your blog is “If It Isn’t Fun, What’s The Point?” I find this an unusual mantra for an atheist blog. How does it fit in with your worldview?
Atheism to me isn't so much a world-view as it is just the default way I am, any more than, say, not believing in unicorns constitutes a world-view. The tag-line really does reflect how I think -- if something isn't enjoyable, is it really necessary to do it at all? Sometimes it is, of course, but I prefer to keep non-enjoyable activities to the minimum I can get away with.
I actually change that tag-line pretty often. Other ones I've used include "Everything spiritual is a lie!" and "Quia tenebrae non obscurabuntur, et nox sicut dies illuminabitur*."
Your blog always manages to find great content for your “link round-ups.” I’ve recently started rounding-up my own links. What’s your criteria for a link worthy post?
First off, it has to be something I personally find interesting. The blog is for fun, not duty (see tag-line), and I make no effort to be comprehensive or completist. Second, I aim for variety. It's easy to let the link-round-ups -- and the whole blog -- get dominated by politics, especially in an election year, but this isn't a political blog any more than it's an atheism blog -- it's an anything-I'm-interested-in blog. A movie review, a joke, an interesting picture, or something historical or bizarre or sexy or shocking might make the cut. If I can get even one person to click on something completely outside the range of subjects he or she would normally pursue, I figure the link round-up has served its purpose.
As atheists, we often talk about the harm caused by religion. What do you see as the primary benefit of religion, if any?
I honestly see no benefit to it at all. All the good it supposedly does is actually done by people, and I think most of that good would still be done by people -- likely the same people -- with or without religion. Religion does provide people with comfort in the face of death, by convincing them that there's an afterlife, but even that is actually pernicious in modern times because it distracts us from pursuing technological solutions to the menace of aging and death, solutions which are now close to being within our grasp. Even if that were not the case, comfort based on a false premise can't be described as genuinely good, in my opinion.
Who is your atheist role model? Why?
I don't need a role model to "do" the equivalent of not believing in unicorns. I admire the militant fighters against religion such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Ibn Warrâq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and others like them.
Is there anything that would convince you that there is a god? If so, provide an example.
"The eye is complicated, therefore God" definitely doesn't cut the mustard. It would have to be the same kind of evidence that routinely convinces me other entities exist. For example, I've never personally met President Obama, but I have no doubt that he exists. If God were shown to exist on the basis of the same kind of evidence that is available for the existence of President Obama, I'd believe it. Needless to say, I'm not holding my breath.
Religionists have challenged me on this point before -- one once said "Nothing could convince you -- even if you saw a dead person rise from the grave, you'd just dismiss it as a hallucination." My response was that if I did see such a thing, it would be irrational not to consider the strong likelihood that I was hallucinating. After all, there exist many documented cases of people hallucinating, but no documented cases of corpses actually returning to life, so which would be the more likely explanation? Even if a corpse did return to life, it wouldn't necessarily imply the existence of the Biblical Jehovah, since other possible explanations -- some rare and previously-unobserved natural phenomenon, or unknown persons using some highly-advanced technology unknown to the rest of the world -- would also need to be considered. No, show me evidence like the evidence that's routinely accepted for the existence of anything else.
On your blog you say “that it has been my great fortune to live my whole life free of ‘spiritual’ concepts of any kind.” Do you contribute your immunity to religious B.S. to your skeptical character, or your upbringing? How might you tell that you are an infidel by nature or nurture?
Definitely upbringing. My parents were immigrants from Britain and, like most British people, not religious. They never tried to indoctrinate me as an atheist, they just didn't emphasize the whole subject. I was given a kids' book of Bible stories, but never told it had any different status than Aesop or Little Red Riding Hood or any other fantasy-type story. I barely had much sense of what religion was until well into my teens, and I viewed it just as a phenomenon within anthropology and history.
I reject the idea that any person is a believer or unbeliever "by nature" in the sense of something innate. Anyone could be either, depending on circumstances.
You identify as a transhumanist. If you could sign-up for one technological improvement that might be available in the next hundred years (if not now) what would it be?
Radical life extension. The longer I'm around, the more other innovations I'll be there to experience -- including yet further progress in life extension. Death has always been humanity's greatest enemy, and the total defeat and eradication of death is the highest and noblest goal we can pursue.
Aside from that, full-immersion virtual reality. An unlimited range of experience -- eventually not restricted even by the extremely limited range of senses evolution has given our physical bodies.
The tagline for your blog is “If It Isn’t Fun, What’s The Point?” I find this an unusual mantra for an atheist blog. How does it fit in with your worldview?
Atheism to me isn't so much a world-view as it is just the default way I am, any more than, say, not believing in unicorns constitutes a world-view. The tag-line really does reflect how I think -- if something isn't enjoyable, is it really necessary to do it at all? Sometimes it is, of course, but I prefer to keep non-enjoyable activities to the minimum I can get away with.
I actually change that tag-line pretty often. Other ones I've used include "Everything spiritual is a lie!" and "Quia tenebrae non obscurabuntur, et nox sicut dies illuminabitur*."
Your blog always manages to find great content for your “link round-ups.” I’ve recently started rounding-up my own links. What’s your criteria for a link worthy post?
First off, it has to be something I personally find interesting. The blog is for fun, not duty (see tag-line), and I make no effort to be comprehensive or completist. Second, I aim for variety. It's easy to let the link-round-ups -- and the whole blog -- get dominated by politics, especially in an election year, but this isn't a political blog any more than it's an atheism blog -- it's an anything-I'm-interested-in blog. A movie review, a joke, an interesting picture, or something historical or bizarre or sexy or shocking might make the cut. If I can get even one person to click on something completely outside the range of subjects he or she would normally pursue, I figure the link round-up has served its purpose.
As atheists, we often talk about the harm caused by religion. What do you see as the primary benefit of religion, if any?
I honestly see no benefit to it at all. All the good it supposedly does is actually done by people, and I think most of that good would still be done by people -- likely the same people -- with or without religion. Religion does provide people with comfort in the face of death, by convincing them that there's an afterlife, but even that is actually pernicious in modern times because it distracts us from pursuing technological solutions to the menace of aging and death, solutions which are now close to being within our grasp. Even if that were not the case, comfort based on a false premise can't be described as genuinely good, in my opinion.
Who is your atheist role model? Why?
I don't need a role model to "do" the equivalent of not believing in unicorns. I admire the militant fighters against religion such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Ibn Warrâq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and others like them.
Is there anything that would convince you that there is a god? If so, provide an example.
"The eye is complicated, therefore God" definitely doesn't cut the mustard. It would have to be the same kind of evidence that routinely convinces me other entities exist. For example, I've never personally met President Obama, but I have no doubt that he exists. If God were shown to exist on the basis of the same kind of evidence that is available for the existence of President Obama, I'd believe it. Needless to say, I'm not holding my breath.
Religionists have challenged me on this point before -- one once said "Nothing could convince you -- even if you saw a dead person rise from the grave, you'd just dismiss it as a hallucination." My response was that if I did see such a thing, it would be irrational not to consider the strong likelihood that I was hallucinating. After all, there exist many documented cases of people hallucinating, but no documented cases of corpses actually returning to life, so which would be the more likely explanation? Even if a corpse did return to life, it wouldn't necessarily imply the existence of the Biblical Jehovah, since other possible explanations -- some rare and previously-unobserved natural phenomenon, or unknown persons using some highly-advanced technology unknown to the rest of the world -- would also need to be considered. No, show me evidence like the evidence that's routinely accepted for the existence of anything else.
Monday, June 25, 2012
An Interview with Hausdorff
The following is an interview with Hausdorff of Hausdorff's Bible Blog.
Have you always been a nonbeliever? If not, what were you before and what was most influential in your change?
I have not always been a nonbeliever, I grew up as an evangelical christian. Pretty early on, I remember a lot of things about the religion that didn't make sense to me. I started asking question at around age 10 and my parents reacted in a pretty extreme manner. I decided never to talk to them about it again and just thought about my issues with the religion. I would say I didn't really consider myself an atheist until about age 19. If I had to pick one thing that was influential in my change, I guess it would be the problem of evil as it was the first step in a long journey. I've written about this topic in more detail here.
Each day, you take a bit of the Bible and post a summary along with commentary. So far, you’ve made it through the Gospels and Acts. Which is your favorite and least favorite Gospel? Why?
That's a difficult question. The worst thing about going through the gospels was the repetitiveness of it, so Matthew has an unfair advantage just from being first and John has an unfair disadvantage from being last. I would say that Mark was my least favorite because there was the least amount of original material (you can see here that when you read Mark you are only getting 6% new stuff). I almost skipped John when I got to it, but I'm glad I didn't because there was some things in it that I found interesting.
Reading the Bible straight through is a completionist exercise I doubt many believers have accomplished. Most seem to take short snippets from church as a sufficient knowledge of scripture. What is to gain from taking the whole text in context?
My motivation to start this project was hearing from Christians about all of the good stuff in the bible and from atheists about all of the bad stuff in the bible. I was curious what the real mix is. Is there a whole bunch of good stuff with a few bad things mixed in, is there a whole bunch of bad stuff with a few good things mixed in? What is the real proportion? So far, I think it is a fairly even mix of good and bad with a lot of boring stuff as filler. (well actually, it seems to me that there is a bit more bad than good, but lets be honest, no matter how much I try to eliminate it, I have a bias). I have also just picked up some facts about the bible that are nice to know. It has helped me in discussions with theists a few times already, they will say "Jesus never said that", and I can say "yes he did, here is the verse".
Like the Bible, you read The Problem of Pain by C.S. Lewis. Lewis seems to be the wise wordsmith of the apologetic movement. He’s like the late Carl Sagan was to science. In your opinion, just how wise is Lewis?
Lewis was completely unimpressive. I was expecting some interesting arguments, but all I read was logical fallacy after logical fallacy. I am hopeful that I was simply unlucky and chose a poor example of his work, but my best guess is that people hear that he is a good Christian writer and simply recommend his work without reading it themselves.
As atheists, we often talk about the harm caused by religion. What do you see as the primary benefit of religion, if any?
I usually don't think about this side of this issue, good question. I guess the largest benefit of religion is instant community. My wife and I are moving to a new place soon, and the scariest part of it (apart from the fact that it is the first time we will both live in a place where it snows) is that with our busy scheduled we might have trouble making friends. It would be a lot easier if we spent an hour a week going to church and meeting people there.
Who is your atheist role model? Why?
Matt Dillahunty, hands down. He is great at debating, and he does a great job of letting people express themselves without holding the whole conversation captive. It is a hard line to walk and he does a great job. I assume that everyone reading your blog is aware of the atheist experience, but if anyone is not they should check it out.
Is there anything that would convince you that there is a god? If so, provide an example.
I've actually answered this question with a blog post here. The short version is that I cannot think of anything that would convince me that God exists. But if God is truly real, I think he should be able to come up with something.
Have you always been a nonbeliever? If not, what were you before and what was most influential in your change?
I have not always been a nonbeliever, I grew up as an evangelical christian. Pretty early on, I remember a lot of things about the religion that didn't make sense to me. I started asking question at around age 10 and my parents reacted in a pretty extreme manner. I decided never to talk to them about it again and just thought about my issues with the religion. I would say I didn't really consider myself an atheist until about age 19. If I had to pick one thing that was influential in my change, I guess it would be the problem of evil as it was the first step in a long journey. I've written about this topic in more detail here.
Each day, you take a bit of the Bible and post a summary along with commentary. So far, you’ve made it through the Gospels and Acts. Which is your favorite and least favorite Gospel? Why?
That's a difficult question. The worst thing about going through the gospels was the repetitiveness of it, so Matthew has an unfair advantage just from being first and John has an unfair disadvantage from being last. I would say that Mark was my least favorite because there was the least amount of original material (you can see here that when you read Mark you are only getting 6% new stuff). I almost skipped John when I got to it, but I'm glad I didn't because there was some things in it that I found interesting.
Reading the Bible straight through is a completionist exercise I doubt many believers have accomplished. Most seem to take short snippets from church as a sufficient knowledge of scripture. What is to gain from taking the whole text in context?
My motivation to start this project was hearing from Christians about all of the good stuff in the bible and from atheists about all of the bad stuff in the bible. I was curious what the real mix is. Is there a whole bunch of good stuff with a few bad things mixed in, is there a whole bunch of bad stuff with a few good things mixed in? What is the real proportion? So far, I think it is a fairly even mix of good and bad with a lot of boring stuff as filler. (well actually, it seems to me that there is a bit more bad than good, but lets be honest, no matter how much I try to eliminate it, I have a bias). I have also just picked up some facts about the bible that are nice to know. It has helped me in discussions with theists a few times already, they will say "Jesus never said that", and I can say "yes he did, here is the verse".
Like the Bible, you read The Problem of Pain by C.S. Lewis. Lewis seems to be the wise wordsmith of the apologetic movement. He’s like the late Carl Sagan was to science. In your opinion, just how wise is Lewis?
Lewis was completely unimpressive. I was expecting some interesting arguments, but all I read was logical fallacy after logical fallacy. I am hopeful that I was simply unlucky and chose a poor example of his work, but my best guess is that people hear that he is a good Christian writer and simply recommend his work without reading it themselves.
As atheists, we often talk about the harm caused by religion. What do you see as the primary benefit of religion, if any?
I usually don't think about this side of this issue, good question. I guess the largest benefit of religion is instant community. My wife and I are moving to a new place soon, and the scariest part of it (apart from the fact that it is the first time we will both live in a place where it snows) is that with our busy scheduled we might have trouble making friends. It would be a lot easier if we spent an hour a week going to church and meeting people there.
Who is your atheist role model? Why?
Matt Dillahunty, hands down. He is great at debating, and he does a great job of letting people express themselves without holding the whole conversation captive. It is a hard line to walk and he does a great job. I assume that everyone reading your blog is aware of the atheist experience, but if anyone is not they should check it out.
Is there anything that would convince you that there is a god? If so, provide an example.
I've actually answered this question with a blog post here. The short version is that I cannot think of anything that would convince me that God exists. But if God is truly real, I think he should be able to come up with something.
Saturday, June 23, 2012
An Interview with Reason Being
The following is an interview with the writer for Reason Being: A Secular Humanist Site for Rational Discourse. Follow him on twitter @logicalbeing.
You were raised Catholic and went to Catholic schools. Do you think this foundation in, and later breaking from, faith has made you a more effective atheist activist? Would you have rather been raised by nonbelievers?
I am quite happy that I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic School. Like it or not, Christianity is a huge part of our culture. So many books, movies, and other parts of life have references to biblical stories. I am very glad that I know them. Catholic school was also important. It really helped to shape who I am. Sitting through religion classes in high school was a very important part of my development. It was there that I really started asking questions.
I am glad that I was raised by believers. I think my atheism is stronger because it was hard for me to reject the idea of god and to leave Catholicism. To make that leap required a ton of thought and strong convictions. I am not sure I would have felt as strongly as I do if I was raised in a non-religious family. That is hard to know for certain, but I certainly have no regrets.
I think it has made me a more effective atheist activist. My problems with Catholicism are where my activistism started, and where much of it is still focused. t wasn’t until later (in college and after) that I learned about other religions. If I was not raised Catholic, I am not sure I would have the inclination to be an activist.
About how much Christ have you eaten during your time as a Catholic? Was he delicious?
I have eaten a ton of Christ, and it is quite bland. From my first communion at age 7 through age 18 (when I went to college) we did not miss a Sunday mass. That is a lot of Christ. I stopped going to mass the day I moved away.
In school you took classes in theology, minored in philosophy and majored in political science. You mention in your “Road to Atheism” post that a class in Creation vs. Evolution was the final straw for your dwindling belief in a deity. With knowledge of science, psychology, philosophy and whatever else you have in your academic tool box, what field of study do you feel is most damning to religious faith?
That is a tough question. It is so hard to separate the different fields of knowledge from each other as I studied and continue to read on them all. For me it was a general knowledge of science and philosophy. In no way could I be considered a scientist, but I do read a good deal on theoretical physics, cosmology, some biology, etc. These fields and others are out there offering or at least trying to offer legitimate answers to some tough questions. Religion just does not add up when juxtaposed to science. I have written on numerous posts and firmly believe that Reason and Faith are not compatible.
Philosophy was important in my life for a few reasons. First, as a young atheist before the age of the internet, it was important for me to see that so many great thinkers were also atheists. They were so inspiring to me. Second, through the works of some of the great thinkers---Spinoza, Hume, Mill, etc I learned quite a bit, and once again religion did not hold up.
The Creation vs. Evolution class I took was offered by the philosophy department. It covered quite a bit of both science and philosophy. Many of classmates left that class with doubts on evolution, for me, religion did not stand up. I very much respect the professor I had, who was Catholic and almost became a priest, for tolerating and respecting mine and other similarly minded classmates.
Your blog generally tackles issues of Church and State. Now that you’re done with church, any chance you’d focus on State? Would ever want to run for office? (Assuming you aren’t already involved directly in politics.)
Church/State issues are very important to me as you point out. I do not have inclination to run for any political office. I can’t see myself doing anything more on just the “state” side of it than I am doing now, which is mostly through twitter. I have some real problems with the Republican Party in its current form, but much of that is tied into religion. The issues that are not religious in nature, such as their economic plans also trouble me, but not enough to be more of an activist than what I currently do.
As atheists, we often talk about the harm caused by religion. What do you see as the primary benefit of religion, if any?
This is a great question. I think the greatest harm caused by religion is the promotion of ignorance. Let me be clear, I do not think that all religious people are unintelligent or ignorant. However, religions promote ignorance by claiming to already have the answers. If we were to follow religion, much scientific study would cease. There would be no need to continue looking for answers to the origins of the universe for example. Stem cell research would end, closing the door on a field that may ease the suffering of millions. Ignorance is promoted through things like abstinence programs and opposition to contraception. Most religions treat women poorly, if we look at the bible alone, women are seen as second class citizens, what an ignorant view. This list could go on and on. In short, religions do not want us to ask the “tough questions”. Taking something on faith means to stop looking for a better answer. Our species is where it is because many people have rejected that idea and keep looking.
We could argue that Christianity was at its strongest during the “Dark Ages”, not a great title. Islam may be at its strongest now…how is that working out for much of the population of the Middle East? The promotion of ignorance really gets under my skin
Who is your atheist role model? Why?
I am not sure that I have one. I really enjoyed the writings and videos of Christopher Hitchens. I admired the fact that he would take on anyone and was such a great writer. I admire people like Jessica Ahlquist who, at such a young age, stood up for her convictions. I admire people like vjack at Atheist Revolution who are activists in a part of the country (the bible belt) where that is really hard to do. There are so many atheist activists out there doing great things it is hard to pick one as a role model, and there are so many others out there like those three examples as well. I admire any one of us who has the courage to speak up and stand by their convictions.
Is there anything that would convince you that there is a god? If so, provide an example.
I would need to see some concrete proof to believe in a god. No proof that is theological, philosophical, or metaphysical would really suffice. Those are all old news and I do not see anything new coming from those fields. I do not see how science will ever uncover a god, but if it did, through the scientific method, through the rigors of peer review, that could do it. I would buy something as simple as a mass prayer actually working to heal someone. I suppose there is a good reason why religions always reject that challenge i.e.—have all Catholics pray to heal a blind guy. If that kind of thing actually worked, I would be willing to rethink my view. In truth, I do not see any of those things happening.
You were raised Catholic and went to Catholic schools. Do you think this foundation in, and later breaking from, faith has made you a more effective atheist activist? Would you have rather been raised by nonbelievers?
I am quite happy that I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic School. Like it or not, Christianity is a huge part of our culture. So many books, movies, and other parts of life have references to biblical stories. I am very glad that I know them. Catholic school was also important. It really helped to shape who I am. Sitting through religion classes in high school was a very important part of my development. It was there that I really started asking questions.
I am glad that I was raised by believers. I think my atheism is stronger because it was hard for me to reject the idea of god and to leave Catholicism. To make that leap required a ton of thought and strong convictions. I am not sure I would have felt as strongly as I do if I was raised in a non-religious family. That is hard to know for certain, but I certainly have no regrets.
I think it has made me a more effective atheist activist. My problems with Catholicism are where my activistism started, and where much of it is still focused. t wasn’t until later (in college and after) that I learned about other religions. If I was not raised Catholic, I am not sure I would have the inclination to be an activist.
About how much Christ have you eaten during your time as a Catholic? Was he delicious?
I have eaten a ton of Christ, and it is quite bland. From my first communion at age 7 through age 18 (when I went to college) we did not miss a Sunday mass. That is a lot of Christ. I stopped going to mass the day I moved away.
In school you took classes in theology, minored in philosophy and majored in political science. You mention in your “Road to Atheism” post that a class in Creation vs. Evolution was the final straw for your dwindling belief in a deity. With knowledge of science, psychology, philosophy and whatever else you have in your academic tool box, what field of study do you feel is most damning to religious faith?
That is a tough question. It is so hard to separate the different fields of knowledge from each other as I studied and continue to read on them all. For me it was a general knowledge of science and philosophy. In no way could I be considered a scientist, but I do read a good deal on theoretical physics, cosmology, some biology, etc. These fields and others are out there offering or at least trying to offer legitimate answers to some tough questions. Religion just does not add up when juxtaposed to science. I have written on numerous posts and firmly believe that Reason and Faith are not compatible.
Philosophy was important in my life for a few reasons. First, as a young atheist before the age of the internet, it was important for me to see that so many great thinkers were also atheists. They were so inspiring to me. Second, through the works of some of the great thinkers---Spinoza, Hume, Mill, etc I learned quite a bit, and once again religion did not hold up.
The Creation vs. Evolution class I took was offered by the philosophy department. It covered quite a bit of both science and philosophy. Many of classmates left that class with doubts on evolution, for me, religion did not stand up. I very much respect the professor I had, who was Catholic and almost became a priest, for tolerating and respecting mine and other similarly minded classmates.
Your blog generally tackles issues of Church and State. Now that you’re done with church, any chance you’d focus on State? Would ever want to run for office? (Assuming you aren’t already involved directly in politics.)
Church/State issues are very important to me as you point out. I do not have inclination to run for any political office. I can’t see myself doing anything more on just the “state” side of it than I am doing now, which is mostly through twitter. I have some real problems with the Republican Party in its current form, but much of that is tied into religion. The issues that are not religious in nature, such as their economic plans also trouble me, but not enough to be more of an activist than what I currently do.
As atheists, we often talk about the harm caused by religion. What do you see as the primary benefit of religion, if any?
This is a great question. I think the greatest harm caused by religion is the promotion of ignorance. Let me be clear, I do not think that all religious people are unintelligent or ignorant. However, religions promote ignorance by claiming to already have the answers. If we were to follow religion, much scientific study would cease. There would be no need to continue looking for answers to the origins of the universe for example. Stem cell research would end, closing the door on a field that may ease the suffering of millions. Ignorance is promoted through things like abstinence programs and opposition to contraception. Most religions treat women poorly, if we look at the bible alone, women are seen as second class citizens, what an ignorant view. This list could go on and on. In short, religions do not want us to ask the “tough questions”. Taking something on faith means to stop looking for a better answer. Our species is where it is because many people have rejected that idea and keep looking.
We could argue that Christianity was at its strongest during the “Dark Ages”, not a great title. Islam may be at its strongest now…how is that working out for much of the population of the Middle East? The promotion of ignorance really gets under my skin
Who is your atheist role model? Why?
I am not sure that I have one. I really enjoyed the writings and videos of Christopher Hitchens. I admired the fact that he would take on anyone and was such a great writer. I admire people like Jessica Ahlquist who, at such a young age, stood up for her convictions. I admire people like vjack at Atheist Revolution who are activists in a part of the country (the bible belt) where that is really hard to do. There are so many atheist activists out there doing great things it is hard to pick one as a role model, and there are so many others out there like those three examples as well. I admire any one of us who has the courage to speak up and stand by their convictions.
Is there anything that would convince you that there is a god? If so, provide an example.
I would need to see some concrete proof to believe in a god. No proof that is theological, philosophical, or metaphysical would really suffice. Those are all old news and I do not see anything new coming from those fields. I do not see how science will ever uncover a god, but if it did, through the scientific method, through the rigors of peer review, that could do it. I would buy something as simple as a mass prayer actually working to heal someone. I suppose there is a good reason why religions always reject that challenge i.e.—have all Catholics pray to heal a blind guy. If that kind of thing actually worked, I would be willing to rethink my view. In truth, I do not see any of those things happening.
Friday, June 22, 2012
Enter the Interview
Thank God it's Friday! Or something...
Okay, I know I haven't been posting as much lately. It's not you, it's me. However, I have big plans! I'm going to start sprinkling in interviews with fellow atheists among my irregularly scheduled posts. It should be a chance to find out what unites us and what makes us unique. If you'd like to be interviewed, leave a comment. Fair warning, I'm interviewing those with an atheist presence on the web first. An atheist blog, an atheist YouTube channel, an atheist porn site, whatever.
Okay, I know I haven't been posting as much lately. It's not you, it's me. However, I have big plans! I'm going to start sprinkling in interviews with fellow atheists among my irregularly scheduled posts. It should be a chance to find out what unites us and what makes us unique. If you'd like to be interviewed, leave a comment. Fair warning, I'm interviewing those with an atheist presence on the web first. An atheist blog, an atheist YouTube channel, an atheist porn site, whatever.
 |
| In this approximation I would be the penguin and you would be the...penguin. |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)