The Atheism issue revisited

My entry on skepticism and atheism from a while ago, has been getting quite a bit of attention lately with comments being posted on the comments section of the entry itself and on Twitter. The issue of atheism has become quite sticky, I think, in the skeptical circles. My diagnosis is that some skeptics are not applying skepticm consistently when the issue of religion/God is involved. In this entry I will try to rehash the arguments and hopefully be a little more clear as to why I take such a position. My only request to would-be commenters is to criticize my directly stated arguments/premises. I have noticed that this argument tends to drift away into other areas that are not implied/stated and becomes a useless war of words where both sides are not talking about the same thing. If there is something wrong with my definitions/premises/arguments let us pick that apart. If not you must grant that my argument is valid.

The first thing that needs to be clear before we can engage in a meaningful dialogue, is what atheism is. What does it mean to be an atheist? How do you define atheism? Another thing I have noticed is that people hold various ideas of what atheism is. It has even been said to me that because people hold various ideas about atheism, my argument basically becomes invalid. I do not think that is the right way to go about this. Regardless of how many competing definitions of atheism there may be out there, we must agree that surely we should try to use the one that most acurately describes us, regardless of the multitute of other definitons. It doesn’t matter what most people think an atheist is or should be, all that matters is what an atheist actually is!

So how do you go about defining a group of people? Well, I would think that you would start with the characteristics that they all share. You would have to be able to find something that they all have in common, so that you could point to this something and say “any person that has characteristic X” becomes part of this group of people. So if you look accros the spectrum of atheists what is the one (or more) common characteristic? What is the one thing that they all share? I propose that this thing is the lack of belief in Gods! That’s it, pure and simple.

Point of contention #1 – You disagree that my definition of atheism is the most correct one that applies to all atheists. Please provide your arguments.

Now on to skepticism. I think this one is harder to nail down correctly, but easier for most of you to agree with.  A skeptic is a person that applies skepticism. Ha, I know that’s a bit circular, but I’m not done. Skepticism is a method of evaluating the truth value of a claim, which relies heavily on the rules of logic and the scientific method. Now I know that those philosophy lovers out there can go on forever talking about what relying on the rules of logic and what the scientific method really entails, but I do not intend to get into much of that, for many reasons. That could be food for thought in another entry but not this one.

Point of contention #2 – You disagree that my definition of skepticism is the most correct one that applies to all skeptics. Please provide your arguments.

So having these two definitions down I make my claim: Skepticism must lead to atheism. Skepticism doesn’t equal atheism; they are not one and the same, but one (skepticism) leads to the other (atheism). I’ve made that point at my other entry already. People can be atheists for various reasons, and a committment to the rules of logic and the scientific method is but one way one can use to reach atheism. Being an atheist does not require one to be a skeptic. But I do think that being a skeptic requires one to be an atheist.

If we agree on the definition of atheism as stated above this is almost too obvious. Either the evidence presented for Gods is sufficient (thus you must declare belief in God), insufficient (thus you must lack belief in God) or is somewhere in between leaving one unsure. Now most skeptics, almost every single one I’ve ever known fall into the second and third camps, either they are declared atheists or they seem to be unsure, using terms such as “agnostic” to describe their stance. Which introduces another term that needs to be defined, agnostic, but I will sidestep that bomb and simply say that agnostic captures the third category, the first two being theist and atheist. And please let us not get into a discussion about agnosticism. I can choose not use the word agnostic, and go with something like the-jury-is-still-out to describe this camp. The definition of agnosticism is not at all relevant in the argument that I am putting forward.

So how can a skeptic apply skepticism consistently AND not be an atheist, meaning lacking belief in God (i.e. being agnostic about God)? Well, it can be done only if one can show somehow that there is at least some evidence, which is consistent with the standards of evidence that skeptics require of all other claims, that supports the God Claim. I claim that all the evidence that has been presented in favor of the existence of God does not hold up to the standards of evidence that we apply to all other cryptozoological creatures or pseudoscientific/paranormal claims.

Point of contention #3 – You disagree with the above sentence. You think some good evidence exists in favor of the God Hypothesis. Please provide said evidence.

So I have provided folks with at least 3 points of contention that can topple my argument. And let me recap my argument quickly:

Atheism=Lack of belief in gods.

Skepticism = Relies in rules of logic and scientific method

No convincing evidence has been put forward for the God hypothesis

The lack of evidence must lead to lack of belief in gods (not certainty of their inexistence)

Skeptics, which rely on evidence, thus must lack belief in gods

Skepticism must lead to atheism

Another point to make here is that there is one major unstated premise in my argument: I am relying on the definition of God as the one that the major monotheistic religions of our day see him: a God that is directly involved in the creation, and running of our universe; one that is meddling in all the time with miracles and such; in other words God as most people believe him to be from Muslims, to Christians, to Jews. I am aware that if someone claims that God does not interfere at all with our universe, that he just set he wheels in motion and is now sitting back, completely undetectable, that falls outside of skepticism, and I would say outside of humanity’s ability to know period. To those folks I have only one thing to say: What the hell is the point in believing that, and isn’t that a bit of special pleading or moving the post? Does this not remind you of Sagan’s invisible, non-heat fire breathing dragon in “Demon haunted world” (that is the correct book right? I’m pulling that from my memory!) But that’s their choice.

That is why I say that unless one is willing to take the same position about other claims, such as Bigfoot, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Russell’s teapot, they cannot give the God Hypothesis this preferential treatment. But many do, and that is what I call the big Skeptical Blindspot, the inability to see how this “agnosticism” about God, but not about unicorns, conflicts with skepticism. If I am wrong please tear this argument apart. I am not particularly attached to the conclusion “Skepticism-> Atheism”, I just happen to think that, based on my reasoning above, it is the right one.

READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE AT PSYCHOLOGY TODAY

By now you may have heard about or seen the “good without God” posters in the subways of New York City and elsewhere. Media outlets from the New York Times to Fox News have characterized them as ads promoting atheism. Yet while the campaign aims to reach out to nonbelievers, it also raises a broader issue–something most people seem to have missed.

The obvious meaning of “good without God” is that atheists can be good people. But a closer look reveals a more universal message: people can be good regardless of their beliefs about God. From this perspective, the ad was not about atheism, but about the nature of morality. (I’m writing this blog post along with Michael De Dora, Jr., a spokesperson for the New York City campaign.)

When we act ethically, our reasons are usually nothing transcendental, just simple respect and compassion for others.

With split seconds to save a stranger from death on the tracks at the 137th Street subway station, Wesley Autrey didn’t pause to seek divine guidance or reflect on his reward in heaven. That would have been one thought too many, as the moral philosopher Bernard Williams would say. As Autrey later explained, “I just saw someone who needed help. I did what I felt was right.” The exact words that went through his head were, “Fool, you got to go in there.” Responsibility is like that. No one else can claim it for you.

Moral choices are not always as clear-cut as Autrey’s. The solution to complex ethical debates is seldom as clear as a stone tablet or a voice from a burning bush. One problem with stone tablets is that there is only so much you can fit on them. Lists of shalts and shalt nots in and of themselves can never be comprehensive and precise enough to render right answers on borderline cases and contemporary issues. “Shalt not kill” does not resolve whether one-week old embryos count as the kind of thing that may not be killed; “shalt not steal” does not explain when derivatives trading becomes stealing.

READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE AT PSYCHOLOGY TODAY

READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE AT THE GUARDIAN

Religious teachings promise us much — eternal life, spiritual salvation, moral direction, and a deeper understanding of reality. It all sounds good, but these teachings are also onerous in their demands. If they can’t deliver on what they promise, it would be well to clear that up. Put bluntly, are the teachings of any religion actually true or not? Do they have any rational support? It’s hard to see what questions could be more important. Surely the claims of religion — of all religions — merit scrutiny from every angle, whether historical, philosophical, scientific, or any other.

Contrary to many expectations in the 1970s, or even the 1990s, religion has not faded away, even in the Western democracies, and we still see intense activism from religious lobbies. Even now, one religion or another opposes abortion rights, most contraceptive technologies, and therapeutic cloning research. Various churches and sects condemn many harmless, pleasurable sexual activities that adults can reasonably enjoy. As a result, these are frowned upon, if not prohibited outright, in many parts of the world, indeed people lose their lives because of them. Most religious organisations reject dying patients’ requests to end their lives as they see fit. Even in relatively secular countries, such as the UK, Canada, and Australia, governments pander blatantly to Christian moral concerns as the protection of religiously motivated refusals to provide medical professional services demonstrates.

In a different world, the merits, or otherwise, of religious teachings might be discussed more dispassionately. In that world, some of us who criticise religion itself might be content to argue that the church (and the mosque, and all the other religious architecture that sprouts across the landscape) should be kept separate from the state. Unfortunately, however, we don’t live in that world.

READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE AT THE GUARDIAN

Clusterflock brings us this cutie:

READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE AT NEWSCIENTIST

The second wave of the swine flu pandemic is now under way in the northern hemisphere. Case numbers are climbing fast and in some places vaccination has begun.

So what’s the big deal? The virus hasn’t evolved into the monster that some feared and most cases are mild. Were all those pandemic warnings just scare-mongering?

The Butcher family of Southampton, UK, wouldn’t say so. In August, their daughter Madelynne, 18, became sick and short of breath after returning from a holiday. Two weeks later, she died in hospital.

Neither would the Parker family of Baltimore, Maryland. In September, their healthy 14-year-old daughter Destinée started having trouble breathing within minutes of arriving at school. She was rushed to hospital. A week later she was dead.

There has been complacency-mongering, too. This pandemic is very far from the worst-case scenario, but it is not normal flu either. Many more people than usual will catch flu this year. The vast majority will be fine but some of us, including young, otherwise healthy people, will die. You can help protect yourself and your family by learning the latest on swine flu, from how to spot a serious case to the facts about the vaccines.

MYTH 1

The symptoms are like regular flu. You’ve got it if you’ve got a fever

READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE AT NEWSCIENTIST

READ THE FULL ARTICLE AT MSNBC.COM

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration on Monday came out strongly against efforts by Islamic nations to bar the defamation of religions, saying the moves would restrict free speech.

“Some claim that the best way to protect the freedom of religion is to implement so-called anti-defamation policies that would restrict freedom of expression and the freedom of religion,” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told reporters. “I strongly disagree.”

Clinton said the United States was opposed to negative depictions of specific faiths and would always fight against belief-based discrimination. But she said a person’s ability to practice their religion was entirely unrelated to another person’s right to free speech.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE AT MSNBC.COM

READ THE FULL ARTICLE AT DISCOVERY NEWS

Oct. 23, 2009 — With school closings, a run on face masks, and even a flu-tracker iPhone app, it’s clear that swine flu is taking the country by storm.

As of this month, the flu, now called the 2009 H1N1 influenza, was widespread among people of all ages in 41 states, and it has been reported in all 50. Numbers of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are unusually high for this time of year. And the situation is likely to get worse.

To stem the pandemic, the U.S. government is urging just about everyone older than 6 months to get the H1N1 vaccine as doses of the shot and nasal spray eventually become available for more than just high-risk groups.

Yet, while some people are waiting for hours in line to get themselves or their children vaccinated, others are avoiding it — convinced that the H1N1 vaccine is unnecessary or even unsafe. Scientists are fighting hard to tackle those misconceptions.

“These are urban myths and you can’t even track them down,” said Greg Poland, Director of the Mayo Clinic’s Vaccine Research Group in Rochester, Minn. “Someone says something that spreads virally from person to person and becomes truth in their minds.”

Here are expert answers to some of the most common concerns.

Concern #1: Swine flu is no big deal. It’s just another example of media hype.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE AT DISCOVERY NEWS

Looks promising but something is not sitting right with me…can’t figure out what though!

The result would look something like this:

READ THE FULL ENTRY AT SHORT SHARP SCIENCE

Should US health insurers fund spiritual healing? As members of both the Senate and the House of Representatives slug it out over issues like government-funded health insurance, clauses that could force health insurers to pay for religious and spiritual healing have slipped into at least two of the healthcare reform bills currently making their way through Congress.

One of the House bills, for example, states that insurers shall not “discriminate in approving or covering a healthcare service on the basis of its religious or spiritual content”, as long as that service is tax-deductible. There is similar language in one of the Senate healthcare bills.

Christian Scientists are the only religious group whose practitioner services are currently tax-deductible and they believe strongly in the healing power of prayer. These bills will have to be combined over the next few weeks before being signed into law, and it’s unclear whether the “religious or spiritual content” provisions will survive. But if they do, they could force health insurers to pay for prayers from Christian Science practitioners.

“It’s so important that anyone in this country, not just Christian Scientists, not be discriminated against because they use spiritual care or rely on it instead of conventional medical treatment,” said Phil Davis, who manages media and legislative affairs for Christian Scientists globally, speaking to the St Petersburg Times, a Florida newspaper.

READ THE FULL ENTRY AT SHORT SHARP SCIENCE