Alex’s Heresies – embracing a physical reality

Alan Sokal gave the third annual Sense: About Science lecture in February, 2008 where he suggested calling the religious spade a superstitious shovel. Or, to put it another way, if religion (faith) looks like superstition, sounds like superstition and argues like superstition, then it probably is superstition.

From a scientific or naturalistic worldview substitute the word ‘superstition’ every time religious writers or speakers use ‘religion’ and the synonymous ‘faith’ to see what they are really saying without our traditional reverance and respect. This makes a good reality check.

So George W. Bush’s quotations become:

“My superstition [faith] plays a big part in my life. And when I was answering that question what I was really saying to the person was that I pray a lot. And I do. And my superstition [faith] is a very, it’s very personal. I pray for strength. I pray for wisdom. I pray for our troops in harm’s way. I pray for my family. I pray for my little girls.
“But I’m mindful in a free society that people can worship if they want to or not. You’re equally an American if you choose to worship an Almighty and if you choose not to. If you’re a Christian, Jew or Muslim you’re equally an American. That’s the great thing about America is the right to worship the way you see fit. Prayer and superstition [religion] sustain me. I receive calmness in the storms of the presidency. I love the fact that people pray for me and my family all around the country. Somebody asked me one time, how do you know? I said I just feel it.

“Superstition [religion] is an important part. I never want to impose my superstition [religion] on anybody else. But when I make decisions I stand on principle. And the principles are derived from who I am. I believe we ought to love our neighbor like we love ourself. That’s manifested in public policy through the superstition [faith]-based initiative where we’ve unleashed the armies of compassion to help heal people who hurt. I believe that God wants everybody to be free. That’s what I believe. And that’s one part of my foreign policy. In Afghanistan I believe that the freedom there is a gift from the Almighty. And I can’t tell you how encouraged how I am to see freedom on the march. And so my principles that I make decisions on are a part of me. And superstition [religion] is a part of me.”
–Third Presidential Debate, Tempe, AZ, October 13, 2004

“I believe it is in the national interest that government stand side-by-side with people of superstition [faith] who work to change lives for the better. I understand in the past, some in government have said government cannot stand side-by-side with people of superstition [faith]. Let me put it more bluntly, government can’t spend money on superstitious [religious] programs simply because there’s a rabbi on the board, cross on the wall, or a crescent on the door. I viewed this as not only bad social policy — because policy by-passed the great works of compassion and healing that take place — I viewed it as discrimination.”
–Speech in Washington D.C., June 1, 2004

“I’m telling America we need to not discriminate against superstition-based [faith-based] programs. We need to welcome them so our society is more wholesome, more welcoming, and more hopeful for every single citizen.”
–Speech in Washington D.C., June 1, 2004

“It is the government’s strong desire to empower this fabric, this social fabric of our society where superstition-based [faith-based] programs large and small feel empowered, encouraged, and welcomed into changing lives.”
–Speech in Washington D.C., June 1, 2004

“It’s also important to strengthen our communities by unleashing the compassion of America’s superstitious [religious] institutions. Superstitious [religious] charities of every creed are doing some of the most vital work in our country–mentoring children, feeding the hungry, taking the hand of the lonely. Yet government has often denied social service grants and contracts to these groups, just because they have a cross or a Star of David or a crescent on the wall. By executive order, I have opened billions of dollars in grant money to competition that includes superstition-based [faith-based] charities. Tonight I ask you to codify this into law, so people of superstition [faith] can know that the law will never discriminate against them again.”
–State of the Union Address, January 20, 2004

As a matter of interest here are some interesting definitions from the Shorter Oxford Dictionary:
Faith: (1) confidence, reliance, belief esp. without evidence or proof; (2) what is or should be believed; a system of firmly held beliefs or principles; a religion

Religion: belief in or sensing of some superhuman controlling power or powers, entitles to obedience, reverence, and worship

Superstition:  (1) irrational awe or fear of the unknown; belief in a religion considered false or pagan; religious belief or practice founded on fear or ignorance; credulity regarding religion or the supernatural; (2) irrational religious system

Alex McCullie

I was watching a  public Michael Ruse lecture in Australia hosted by Fora TV. It made me think about how Ruse, Francis Collins, and the late Stephen Jay Gould along with many scientists and liberal religious leaders see science and religion as working in separate non-conflicting fields of human knowledge and understanding.

Typically they characterise Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens as fundamental atheists, who are equivalent to religious fundamentalists. Both are seen as fringe groups outside the mainstream and majority thought. So the question that came to mind is how much of a religious fundamentalist do you need to be to see conflict between science and religion and what sort of populations hold conflicting views?

The Pew Forum regularly produce statistics on US religious beliefs – the home country of Michael Ruse and Francis Collins. According for Pew:

63% of the sample population believe that their scriptures are literally the word of God (33%) or non-literally the word of God (30%) in 2007/2008. Roughly 80% of the US population of 307 million (July 2009 estimate) are more than 14 years old. So we have around 81 million people believing that their respective sacred texts are literally the word of God. Sacred texts invariably contain miracles as God’s interruptions of the natural order. For Christians that includes Jesus’ virgin birth, healings and physical resurrection as part of those miracle traditions. It seems that these beliefs in the literal historicity of these miracle stories is in direct conflict with a scientific understanding of the world. So does Ruse classify these 81 million religious people as fundamentalists? Even the other 73 million religious people who see the texts as the non-literal word of God are likely to subscribe the some of the more important miracle traditions, again in conflict with science.

The Religious Tolerance website has polls results on beliefs of the resurrection of Jesus story. It seems that 60-90% of Christian clergy and laity believe in the actuality of Jesus’ resurrection over a 1997 to 2000 period. Again, an extraordinary number of US population who believe prima facie something that is contrary to our scientific view of our world.

Do Ruse and Collins see these people, millions I might say, as religious fundamentalists? And, if so, are they equivalent in numbers to the four outspoken atheists often named?

Alex McCullie

This week I presented a lecture on Progressive Christianity to the local Atheist society in Melbourne, Australia. Progressive Christians have redefined God from an all-powerful being to a pervasive essence; Jesus is now an ancient insightful sage; and the Bible is no longer the word of God but a source of personal inspiration. And they still call themselves Christians!

Atheists should learn from this. Stop being narrowly typecasted into a role of god rejection: join the majority of the population as a Practical Atheist.

For a start a practical atheist is one who lives life with the working assumption of no god. For practical atheists a god plays no role in the way they conduct daily affairs – work, family, local community and broader society. Church attendences are restricted to purely cultural or social activities – weddings, funerals and the like. They are essentially cultural Christians only: God, Jesus and the Bible have no practical meaning in their lives – they are not needed. Ironically their children may even go to a Christian school. But that was an educational decision.

This position could be reflective or unreflective, the latter being the majority I suspect. In fact if asked “are you an atheist?” they would almost certainly say “no” or if asked “do you believe in god?”, they would say “yes” with some hesitation.

But, in practice, their working assumption is that they don’t believe in god. They are practical atheists.

For those who do reflect on beliefs, this will vary considerably:

• Definite rejection of the theist god. Though reasonable from everyday experience, this is philosophically hard to argue. That is why theists love to box us this way.
• Disbelief of the theist god - no convincing reasons to believe. This is an eminently defensible position.
• Disbelief of all supernatural existences – god, ghosts, spirits, souls and anything to do with an after-life. Still a very defensible position.
• Acceptance of a physical world only and with a progressive, humanist view, often referred to as naturalism.  It gets controversal when discussing free-will, consciousness and the universality of morality and mathematical concepts. This is unreservedly my position.

Avoid being boxed, cleverly by Christians apologists, into the rejection motif with the “prove-it” response and  talk about how people really act. We are all practical atheists.

Alex McCullie

I hope this is not serious, from a help column in the Denver Post. Still some attitudes out of the US do not give me confidence.

Dear Margo: Our daughter started college a year ago, and we’ve noticed during her visits home that she’s not the sweet, innocent girl we sent away for higher learning. We raised her with strong Christian beliefs, but lately she’s saying that she’s joined an atheist club on campus and is questioning everything we taught her. Now my husband refuses to let her in the house and is threatening to turn her in to the FBI. I’ve tried to cure our daughter and reconcile with her, but nothing seems to work. I’ve prayed over her at night while she sleeps, enlisted friends in a phone prayer tree and even spoken to my priest about the possibility of an exorcism. I’m at my wits’ end. How can I recover my daughter and keep her from hell? — God-fearing

Dear God: Whoa, dear. While I am sympathetic to anyone’s devotion to their religion, you need to realize that your daughter is a sentient being with the right to reject your religious views if she so chooses. Your husband is pathetically misguided if he thinks he can call the FBI to report the “crime” of your daughter joining an atheists club. Ditto for the exorcism. This young woman is not possessed, demonic or doing weird things; she is merely thinking and questioning the religion she grew up with. I would encourage you to understand that all people, your daughter included, have the right to think for themselves, particularly about something as meaningful as religion. As for hell, well, she appears willing to take her chances. — Margo, contemplatively

Alex McCullie

The meaning of atheism creates disputes even amongst atheists. The two most popular definitions are (1) disbelief in god(s) and (2) rejection of the existence of god(s). It’s rightfully argued, I think, the second meaning really needs a more specific concept or definition of god to deny. So if we are talking about the classical definition of the Christian god, then someone can reasonably argue rejection based on the logical incoherence of the collection of omni…’s that their god is supposed to be. For good measure also throw in the problem of evil.

Steven Schafersman argues that an someone can hold both of these definitions of atheism at the same time. Non-belief against all gods, non-theist as he calls it, and rejection against a specific definition of a god, anti-theist. For that matter the same person could also believe that god(s) or any supernatural presence(s) are by definition unknowable to physical creatures like humans. Check out Steven’s article – its’ good reading.

Alex McCullie

This is the latest amusing twist to the Probably No God message on UK buses. Now you can insert your own message. Check site out here.

I didn’t say it was thought-provoking!

Alex McCullie

The UK bus “probably no God” continues with a London business driver being horrified at seeing the bus messages questioning the existence of God (see article at Christian Today website). Why are religious people so fragile even with the most moderate questioning? Is this the problem of faith with no evidence?

I should complain every time I see a “you will be saved by God message”.

Alex McCullie

previous related blog entry

I’ve mentioned the non-God bus message campaign before. Here’s a recent news article update with Richard Dawkins and model photographed with one of the buses (article).

Alex McCullie

Here’s your chance to put those non-believer singing voices to a very good cause – atheism. Q Transmissions, a weekly skeptical call-in talk show in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, is conducting a singing contest – the best singing voice for a new atheist anthem. Submit via YouTube, Blackberry or laptop. Raise up your voices and sing for… (Check the contest here.)

Alex McCullie

A paid-for Imagine No Religion billboard in Ontario, Canada threatens the faith of the religious. Well that’s why it’s been removed much to the relief of the somewhat faithful.

Judy Rooze, administrator of First Baptist Church of Rancho Cucamonga, which is two blocks from the billboard, was relieved it was coming down.

Rooze said it was unsettling.

“I understand people have freedom of speech, but this is taking it too far,” she said. “It’s very jarring.”

Nothing more dangerous than a “jarred” Christian (PE.com full article 20 Nov 2008)

Alex McCullie