The Big Day

Well, the big day has come and gone, and in some ways it may even seem anti-climactic. There were no shouting matches, or spitting as some had predicted. All in all, it was a very peaceful day. There ended up being about ten of us that attended as a group. Before entering the fair, we were met by news crews from Channels 5 and 2. I have to say that their coverage was refreshingly fair and honest after some of what we saw earlier in the week. We were given our discounts without fanfare, and once inside the grounds, nobody bothered us, and we noticed no angry glares, or even anyone particularly avoiding us. We met some very nice people from a local church who were offering free water. We were all amused that their signs included the phrase, “atheists welcome”. That turned out to be the case as well when we spoke to them for several minutes. Several people approached us with honest curiosity, and asked questions about what it really meant to be an atheist.

Overall, I feel that the day was a big success, and I can only hope that future events go as well.  If anyone is interested, here is a link to some pictures we took at the fair.

Lead up to Wilson County’s God and Country Day

Wilson County’s God and Country day is Sunday, August 17, 2008. I first became aware of it about two weeks ago, and after a little discussion within the Secular Life group, we decided that our best approach would be to ask for fair treatment in regard to the discount offered to church-going patrons, and attend the event in order to offer our support of the troops without religious strings attached.

It’s been amazing how strong the reaction has been over this event. It has garnered interest from surrounding atheist, secular, and constitutional groups, as well as a bit of outrage from local Christians. What we all thought would be a small, quiet, display of support has turned into something much larger.

What has disappointed me, and I think highlighted a great problem in our culture, is the media coverage. All three local news networks covered the event, as well as the Tennessean. None of the television news coverage even made an attempt at even handed coverage.  Instead, they portrayed the issue as one of “out of state” atheist activists trying to create controversy over the matter of $2. Despite the fact that all three outlets contacted members of our groups, and were provided with details about our concerns and grievances, they categorically chose to go with a shallow, one sided story, filled with charged language intended to create animosity towards seculars.

The Tennessean was the only news outlet to provide an even handed summary. Not only did they speak to Thaddeus Schwartz, but they actually communicated his position. The contrast was clear in the reader comments to the story. Viewer comments from the television coverage was almost exclusively vitriolic, and centered mostly around people that believed out of state activists were telling them they can’t pray to their god. While there was some of that from the Tennessean readers, there were considerably more people engaging in debate over the actual issues. While I may not agree with what many have to say about it, I am at least happy that they were made aware of the true problem.

I suppose it serves to illustrate the state of television journalism today. I can’t help but feel sorrow, as our local news outlets become carbon copies of Fox News, spewing out fabricated controversy, and overtly opinionated coverage.

Bob Smietana of the Tennessean was responsible for our only fair coverage this week, I’d like to extend my appreciation to him.  I was in personal contact with the office of Dennis Ferrier of WSMV news, and can say that what he presented as news was a collection of deliberate slanting, and outright lies.  I would ecourage everyone to email both of these reporters, and let them know what you thought of their coverage.

In the lead up to the big day, I want to thank the many people who have spoken up in our support, and express my gratitude to everyone that plans to join us tomorrow. I’d also like to speak to those who might disagree with our viewpoint, or believe that our intention is to force them to change their way of life.

We have no interest in telling you what you can believe, or when and where you can pray. We do not belief in dogma, which means that we do not believe in compulsory thinking. What we really want is very simple; we want the respect and considerations afforded to members of the Christian majority in our society. We want people to realize that secular people make up a larger portion of their communities than they realize, and that we are not amoral villains bent on destroying your children.

I can’t help but believe that if people understood us better, there would be so much less controversy. We are all becoming victims of a sensationalist media storm, who’s only desire is to generate argument to sell advertizing dollars.

Person Dennis Ferrier

Right click for SmartMenu shortcuts

Wilson County’s God and Country Day, August 17th

It’s been quite a while since I’ve posted here. I’d apologize, but I am pretty sure all five of my readers will understand.

Recently, I decided that it might be fun to take my family to the local county fair. So I looked up Wilson County’s fair, and checked to see what interesting events they might have to offer. I was disappointed, but not altogether surprised to discover that Sunday, August 17^th was to be designated “God and Country Day”. Fair organizers describe the event as an opportunity to, “Help us show strong support for the men and women of Wilson County who are faithfully serving our country through their military service.” Apparently, we are only able to support our veterans if we are Christians. Christians are also offered $2 off admission if they present a church bulletin at the ticket booth. My first reaction was to think, “Well, I guess we’re not going on that day.” But after thinking about it a bit I got angry about it. Why should my family and I feel excluded from this community event? Wilson County, TN has a long history of violating people’s first amendment rights, and by the looks of an event like this, they don’t seem too worried about continuing that tradition.

I posted a link to the event on the local Nashville Atheists and Secular Life groups, and wrote a letter to the ACLU for advice. Blair Scott, of American Atheist, was kind enough to get involved and provide our fledgling groups with some support. Blair sent the following letter to Sheryl Lewis ((615) 449-3724 or e-mail at mclewis0120@yahoo.com), the event’s coordinator:

From the Office of Blair Scott

National Affiliate Outreach Director &

Alabama State Director, American Atheists, Inc.

PO Box 41, Ryland, AL 35767-2000

Office: (256) 701-6265       Cell: (256) 503-1123

bscott@atheists.org www.atheists.org/al/

Mrs. Lewis:

I contacted the Wilson County Fair Office two days ago and talked to Andy Brummett and Helen (last name unknown) about the $2 discount for church bullets and the “God and Country” theme on August 17^th at the Wilson County Fair.

I was advised by Helen that only those people that attend church are eligible for the discount because it is a promotion for “God and Country Day.” I asked her specifically if citizens that attended Synagogue, Mosque or Temple who do not usually receive bulletins for the service or atheists, agnostics and other non-religious citizens would get the same benefit. Her answer was clear: the discount is for those that attend church on Saturday and Sunday.

However, I received a note from Eric Stubbs, one of my constituents here in Alabama, that you had advised him that all citizens would be eligible for the discount if they brought a printed document of their organization’s Web Page. In addition, a reporter at the Wilson Post advised me that the County Promotions office told her the same thing.

Clearly we have a communications disconnect here between the two county offices that I would appreciate some clarification on. Based on the Wilson County Fair Office’s remarks, which were clearly discriminatory and violate the Civil Rights Act and Tennessee State Constitution, I issued a Press Release on this issue and advised non-Christian citizens to do exactly what you had advised Eric Stubbs to do: bring a printout of the group’s Web Page and ask for the same discount that church-going citizens received.

If the County is allowing anyone that is part of a non-profit organization to receive the discount, then clearly the practice is non-discriminatory and we do not have an issue. However, I would strongly recommend changing the Web Page to reflect this and urge the county to discontinue the use of the phrase “church bulletin” as the means to a discount off admission, as it gives the appearance of a discriminatory practice.

Please advise what the official position of Wilson County is on this matter. Because we have received conflicting information and contradictory data from separate Wilson County offices I cannot make a decision about whether or not to retract my charge of discriminatory practice and policy.

In addition to the church bulletin discount, I would like to inquire as to why “God and Country” was used instead of something that would be more inclusive for all citizens within Wilson County and the surrounding areas. Based on the Web Page, it would seem to me that “Patriotism Day,” “Proud to be an American Day,” or “Support the Troops Day” would be a more appropriate theme than “God and Country.” Using “God and Country Day” lets thousands of area citizens know that they are “second class” when it comes to Wilson County. Whether or not that was or is the intent of Wilson County is irrelevant because that is the way non-religious citizens in the great state of Tennessee perceive it.

In anticipation of your reply,

In reason,
Blair Scott

National Affiliate Outreach Director, American Atheists
Alabama State Director, American Atheists
Online: http://atheists.org/al and http://alabamaatheist.org/naod

Email: bscott@atheists.org or alabamaatheist@gmail.com

Pri Phone: (256) 701-6265
Sec Phone: (256) 503-1123
Postal: PO Box 41, Ryland, AL 35767-2000
MySpace: http://myspace.com/alabamaatheist

YouTube: http://youtube.com/blairscott

American Atheists is a nationwide movement which defends the civil rights of nonbelievers, works for the separation of church and state, and addresses issues of First Amendment public policy. American Atheists, Inc. PO Box 158, Cranford, NJ 07016, Tel: (908) 276-7300 Fax: (908) 276-7402

Blair has yet to receive a response of any kind from Mrs. Lewis, but it seems clear from what response he has received, that the event is explicitly intended to honor the Christian churchgoing citizens of Wilson County. When Christians are given a discount to a government endorsed community event, it is the same thing as instituting an atheist tax. They may as well advertize that atheists will be assessed a $2 fee for attending the fair.

With Blair’s help, we at Nashville’s Secular Life have organized an event of our own. We plan to attend the Wilson County Fair on August 17^th. We will be wearing shirts proclaiming our support for foxhole atheists when we gather at the main entrance before enjoying a group lunch at the fairgrounds. The following is the official press release:

AMERICAN ATHEISTS, INC.

Office of the National Affiliate Outreach Director & Alabama State Director

http://www.atheists.org

http://www.atheists.org/al/

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: AUG 06, 2008

For more information, please contact:

Blair Scott, National Affiliate Outreach Director and Alabama State Director, (256) 701-6265, bscott@atheists.org

WILSON COUNTY TN FAIR’S “GOD AND COUNTRY DAY” AND CHURCH PROGRAM DISCOUNT DISCRIMINATORY AND LIKELY CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION

Wilson County’s Fair Office has made August 17th “God and Country Day” at the fair with a tribute to military personnel. In addition, they are offering a $2 discount for anyone bringing a church bulletin.

The official government endorsement of a religious event at the fair and giving special discount only to Christian citizens is likely a violation of the Tennessee (Article I, Section 3) and Federal Constitutions (Establishment Clause). Providing a discount only for churchgoers is a clear form of discrimination against anyone attending non-Christian churches, Atheists, and other non-theist citizens of Wilson County and the surrounding areas.

When asked why Wilson County was discriminating against non-Christian citizens, a Wilson County Fair Office representative stated, “That is just God and Country day and promoting that event.” The representative continued, “That’s one of the discounts for that Sunday for people that do attend church.”

Blair Scott, the National Affiliate Outreach Director for American Atheists said, “It is unfortunate that Wilson County has decided to specifically endorse and promote Christianity through this program and discriminate against its non-Christian citizens. I was disappointed when the Fair Office stated they did not see this as discrimination.”

Mr. Scott, along with Secular Life Nashville, North Alabama Freethought Association, and Florence United Non-Theists will be gathering at the fair on August 17th wearing T-shirts to support Foxhole Atheists during the tribute to military personnel at the fair. Additionally, area Atheists will be bringing print-outs of their group Web Pages and asking for the $2 discount on admission. Invitations to participate have been sent to other Atheist groups throughout the United States.

AMERICAN ATHEISTS is a nationwide movement that defends civil rights for nonbelievers, works for the total separation of church and state, and addresses issues of First Amendment public policy.

American Atheists, Inc.

PO BOX 158

Cranford, NJ  07016

Tel: (908) 276-7300

Fax: (908) 276-7402

I encourage any sympathetic parties to join us in proving that Christian faith is not ubiquitous, and does not have a monopoly on compassion and patriotism.

Episode 006 – Sun May 11, 2008

Episode 006 Show Notes

Tony Ford and Thaddeus Schwartz join Kevin this week.

We have a wonderful interview with Jan Meshon from FreeThoughtAction.org. He shares his motivations for their current billboard campaign, some of their plans for the future, and gives some advice for local groups thinking of organizing.

We discuss rampant superstition in baseball
To close things out, we examine a new Refrigerator Haiku.

This week’s The Bible Says WHAT!? comes from Exodus 35:2

For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.

We also discuss the overwhelming emphasis on religion in this year’s presidential election.

As always, we close out the show with the Refrigerator Haiku.

Moon song could freeze water

When a blue woman did hear

make a small child laugh

Links

• FreeThoughtAction.org
• Yanks fend off new stadium ‘curse’
• Religion and Progressive Politics in the 2008 Election
• Religion is playing biggest role in presidential politics since 1960

Do Atheists Have Faith?

Most every atheist, with the courage to share his or her views, has at one time or another been told, by a person of faith, that atheism is simply another religion, and requires just as much faith as any other. Some will argue that we can’t possibly know that there is no god. We take it on faith. Scientists can’t answer every question, and for those that they can, we put our faith in their conclusions.

There is a term for the logical fallacy presented here; it’s called an argument from authority. To make an argument from authority, you begin with the premise that a person or group of persons is in a position of such authority that their claims are above reproach. Arguments from authority are common in politics, “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.” In the school yard, “Because the teacher said so”, and in religion, “. . . by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error”

The flaw in arguments from authority is that authority in itself is not proof. It is perfectly possible that an authoritative claim is true, but it is not necessarily true by virtue of its authority. We know for a fact that the authoritative claims leading up to the invasion of Iraq were false. We also know that the Christian church has made many authoritative claims throughout history that have later been proven false. An argument from authority must be accompanied by corroborating proofs to be considered compelling.

We can easily establish that religion is almost entirely an argument from authority. Christians believe that the Bible is the holy word of God. Why do they believe this? Because they have been told it is so, by the Bible no less. They accept as bedrock truth that Jesus is the son of God incarnate and having died on the cross, he rose from the dead and ascended bodily into Heaven. They believe these things because the Bible states them, and they have accepted the Bible as an authoritative source on its own merit.

Another name for an argument from authority is faith. What exactly is faith? According to dictionary.com, Faith is defined as:

1. Confidence or trust in a person or thing
2. Belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion
3. Belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc

Confidence or trust in a person or thing is a textbook example of an argument from authority. It describes exactly what religious people do when they turn to the Bible, or the clergy for answers or guidance. It is precisely what the faithful do when they listen to a sermon.

The second definition, a belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religions, is self evident. It describes faith as the very essence of religiosity.

Without a doubt, religions all have a code of ethics, called morality, and a standard of merit. You must live up to this standard in order to receive your rewards in the afterlife.

The question we need to answer is; are atheists guilty of relying on arguments from authority, and do those arguments form the foundation of our world view? Are atheists relying on faith?

Let’s start with our first definition. Do atheists place their confidence or trust in persons or things? Without a doubt, we do. We have great confidence in the academic community, and the results they produce. Without the trust we place in experts, there would be very little we could know about our world.

What about belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion? Let’s change the pronouns for the sake of fairness, and rephrase this as; a belief in someone or in the doctrines or teaching of an organization. Well, this could be applied to atheists, couldn’t it? After all, we place great stock in scientists, and what they have to say about the natural world.

As for the third definition, atheists do hold to a code of ethics. These ethics are normally based on naturalistic values, and they can vary from one person to another. But I think it’s fair to say that all atheists have a personal code of ethics they aspire to follow. A standard of merit could describe the scientific process. There is a clear standard that must be met in order to be considered valuable.

Another aspect of faith is a faith in natural processes. We have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow and that when we walk out our front doors, gravity will keep us from floating off into space. We have no way of knowing with absolute certainty that these things will hold true from one second to the next, but we behave as if they will. We put our faith in these constancies.

We come now to the core question; do these acts of faith constitute an argument from authority, and therefore, a logical fallacy? There is a distinct difference between the forms of faith practiced by atheists and the religious.

Christians, Jews, and Muslims all elevate the act of faith to a virtue. To believe in God on the authority of the claims made on his behalf is a holy act that will be rewarded at a later date. Faith is one thing all three creeds agree is required for salvation. You must accept these claims to be true without evidence, or face eternal punishment.

Atheists use faith as one more tool in their arsenal. We demand proof where it can be had, and we scrutinize any claim for validity. In order for a scientific claim to have merit, it must be reproducible, and capable of making predictions that can be verified. Even then, these claims must stand up to constant challenge. Faith is essential because there is no absolute certainty. We have no way of knowing that our senses are representing the world with 100% accuracy.

A theist’s faith is a dogmatic thing, based on claims of revealed truths that are beyond reproach. Their world view is static, and when information comes along to challenge that view, the information itself must be modified, or dismissed altogether. Their world model becomes a contorted pretzel of logical fallacies and deliberate distortions of fact.

An atheist’s faith is based on observation and corroboration. Our faith in the natural world is a malleable thing. It is composed of a constantly growing catalog of information. As new information calls old assumptions into question, they are modified or abandoned. We are atheists because we require that anything we learn fit our world model. If it does not, either the information or the model is flawed, and must be reassessed.

To describe atheism as a religion is a semantic trick that does not hold up to critical scrutiny. Atheism, as the name implies, is a lack of theism. It is a rejection of revealed truths, and a denial of dogma.

How many sides does our coin have?

It appears that with the advent of Ben Stein’s new movie, Expelled, the “debate” over science and religion is reaching a fever-pitch. But the one thing that is missing is a clear definition of what the debate is really about.

The creationists have done their best to portray the disagreement as a black and white issue; one where there is one question, and only two possible answers. By doing so, they create the impression that any reasoned and fair debate should assign equal consideration to the opposing sides, and choose which of the two alternatives is more acceptable. Creationists conveniently ignore the real fact that disputing one claim does not inherently prove that your own is the only alternative. Nor does it prove that your own claims have equal validity.

Let’s consider an alternative. Suppose that I said that the evidence supporting scientists’ claims that the outer comets are made mostly of ice was suspect. Now, consider that I further put forth that these comets were, in fact, constructed of ice cream, and were a frosty treat sent from a distant alien race.

I could argue all day that nobody has ever seen these outer comets, let alone touched one, and been able to extract a sample for examination. I could even go so far as to raise questions about mass spectrometry, or dredge up some old assumptions about comets to prove that scientists keep changing their minds on the issue of comet construction. I might even suggest that the idea of great balls of ice getting into orbit is so unlikely as to be impossible, and suggest an intelligent force must be behind their astronomic positioning.

All these points, while varyingly valid (although specious), do nothing to further my own claim that the comets are frozen dairy treats. But by couching the debate in questions of either/or, I have created the false assumption that anything which takes away from one side must add weight to the other.

Our largest problem arises in the fact that this black/white, either/or format of debate lends itself perfectly to media coverage. With 24 hour new media saturating the market, journalists realize that they do not have the time to express complicated questions, nor does the average viewer have to stomach for nuanced choices. Much better is the solid, right/left format. Then viewers can absorb the news, and turn to their favorite pundit for their opinion.

Under such circumstances one only needs to appeal to the most tenuous of religiosity to make a scientific explanation of biological life untenable for most people.

Let’s consider for a moment what the creationist argument consists of.

1. The world is far too complex to have happened accidentally; therefore natural selection is an inadequate explanation.
2. People all over the world believe in God in one form of another; therefore to dismiss God as fiction would be to discredit the opinions of most living humans.
3. Scientists have yet to close all of the gaps in the proposed evolutionary ladder, and still disagree on many of its finer points; therefore evolution is a failed theory, and must be discarded.
4. If we have evolved from lower life forms, then we have no reason to act as anything other than animals.
5. It is impossible to live a fulfilled life without some sense of accountability and reward from a greater power.

There are plenty of other points, and innumerable variations on the preceding arguments, but this is succinct collection of some of the more common ones.

The fact is that being incapable of grasping how natural select creates such complexity does not point to its impossibility, only your own limitations in understanding. This argument unvaryingly comes from people who have made a conscious decision not to understand the processes at hand. I will not even begin to present the scientific explanation behind natural selection; far too many people with a greater understanding than myself already done so. If you are interested in a detailed explanation, I suggest RichardDawkins.net. Furthermore, creationists reject the vast statistical challenges of natural selection, and replace it with one much greater. They choose to claim that natural life is so unlikely that it surely must be the result of an infinitely complex entity, living outside of time and causality.

An argument from numbers does nothing to validate their claims. For many centuries, virtually everyone believed that the Sun circled the Earth, and many people believe so to this day. This does not make it so, and no reasoning person would even give such claims consideration.

Science is a process. If we were to abandon that process every time a single experiment failed to explain a phenomenon in its entirety, there would be no science at all. To suggest that since science does not explain all of evolution, evolution should be dismissed is no different than saying that we should stop using computers because we do not fully understand the behavior and constructions of electrons at the quantum scale.

The argument that we need to be somehow separate from the rest of the animal kingdom in order to behave as humans is perhaps one of the most self deprecating arguments I have ever heard. I won’t even honor it with a response.

The need for a great purpose in one’s life is well known and understood. We all experience it; although some people believe the need justifies the fabrication.

Notice how none of these arguments do anything to strengthen their own claims. They aspire to cast doubt on evolution. The majority of them are specious, misrepresented, or arguments for an emotional response. To a one, they are dependent on a binary decision matrix. They only help to support the claimant’s position when that position is accepted as the only alternative.

Consider for a moment, French philosopher Blaise Pascal’s famous Pascal’s Gambit. Pascal argued that although God’s existence could not be proven, he could prove that belief in God was the logical wager. His argument went as so:

If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is….

…”God is, or He is not.” But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.

Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. “No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all.”

Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.

“That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much.” Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite.

The problem with Pascal’s wager, is that he assumes only two possibilities; either the god he accepts exists, or there is none. If you consider his argument from the accurate assumption that there are hundreds of variations of God to believe in, and several dozen different gods to choose from, it becomes quickly apparent that if all but one of these gods must be false, the logical conclusion is that they all are false.

Creating a false dichotomy is no way to prove your point. When you consider the arguments of creationists within the context of multiple alternatives, it falls apart of its own accord. If the creation argument were in any way valid, it could stand on its own. Clearly, science does not advance itself by casting doubt on religion. Were religion a fraction as well founded as the scientific principal, they would not need to tilt at the windmills of modern learning.