…but not for the reasons you might think

The Giving USA Foundation published a report in 2010^[1] that concluded about $227 billion was donated to charity by individual Americans in 2009. The donations went to religion, education, human services, health, the arts, etc.

In the recent few years, several pundits have made a big to-do about how it is that it’s the religious that give the most to charity, leaving the secular, including atheists, as the less-caring, less-likely to do good for their neighbors. The “Atheism Sucks” blog writes:

conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.

Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone’s tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don’t provide them with enough money.^[2]

And he’s citing Brooks from 2006^[3] in case anyone was curious.

But, luckily, real science has been done on the matter and the nature of charitable giving was examined as it correlates to political ideology. Previous arguments by Brooks and the anti-atheist blogger above, which make partially researched claims that conservative politics drives people to be more giving are not supported in light of evidence gathered by more careful methodology.

The authors of a more recent study that used this more careful methodology examined three separate philanthropic outcomes: donation to congregations, donations to noncongregational religious organizations and donations to noncongregational secular organziations.

And it’s true: the non-religious give less than the religious, even to secular charities.

But not for the reasons they (the religious-conservatives) want us to believe!

What religious-conservatives want everyone to believe is that generosity is a result of their politics and their religious ideologies. But what this more complete research indicates very strongly is that habits and practice are what drive charitable giving. Not ideology. When the controls used are just net of income and demographics, conservatives clearly give more to religious causes. But when one, single, additional variable is added, this changes the results drastically. And that variable is religious attendance. The researchers found that it sufficiently explained the statistical significance between liberals and conservatives in previous studies that omitted the variable.

Along with religious attendence, the addition of attending political meetings and other political activities also affected the results, lowering the statistical significance with the addition of each additional variable.

What this means is that it isn’t ideology driving charitable giving. It’s practice. In other words, the person who attends religious and civic meetings is being presented with opportunities to give to charities. Even Brooks agrees that charitable giving is habitual and learned through practice^[4]. Where the authors and Brooks differ is in what part conservative political ideology has in the process. Brooks sees religious people as being more likely to be politically conservative, but the authors show this isn’t a variable that is as necessary to explain charitable giving as civic participation in general.

So what’s this mean for atheists?

It means, as we get more and more organized, as we are, our rates of charitable giving will increase. The good news is, that it will likely be for secular (and, thus, more likely to be important) causes. One thing that I noticed from the study is that the religious are most likely to donate to themselves. While there are definitely religious charities that do good work, I’m not convinced, by a long shot, that they are either generally as effective or as efficient as their secular counterparts.

As humanity continues to break the spell of religious affliction, we’ll continue to participate in social activities that create habits of giving. Secular student organizations, atheist meet-ups, and other non-religious groups that are increasing in size each year show this to be the case. I’m scheduled to pick up trash in the Adopt-a-Highway program and participate in a blood drive in the next 30 days… both due to atheist/secular civic and social participation. And groups like ours inlcude charities in our communications, announcements, and oral presentations in much the same way Church attendees get.

But even if the religious continue to always give more than the non-religious to charities because they were religious (and it isn’t this way at all) it still wouldn’t demonstrate that the religious were right about their beliefs and superstitions.

For a list of good, secular causes to donate to, click this link: Secular Charities.

References

Brooks, Arthur C. (2003). Religious faith and charitable giving. Policy Review 121(October):39–50.

Brooks, Arthur C. (2006). Who really cares: The surprising truth about compassionate conservatism. New York : Basic Books.

Giving USA Foundation (2010). Giving USA 2010. Indianapolis, IN: Giving USA Foundation: Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.

Vaidyanathan, Brandon, Jonathan P. Hill, and Christian Smith (2011). Religion and Charitable Financial Giving to Religious and Secular Causes: Does Political Ideology Matter? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 50(3), pp. 450-469.

1. Giving USA Foundation. 2010. Giving USA 2010. Indianapolis, IN: Giving USA Foundation: Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.
2. http://atheismsucks.blogspot.com/2006/11/study-proves-conservative-christians.html
3. Brooks, Arthur C.. 2006. Who really cares: The surprising truth about compassionate conservatism. New York : Basic Books.
4. Brooks, Arthur C. 2003. Religious faith and charitable giving. Policy Review 121(October):39–50.
   

And to you fathers who happen to be Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc.

Being a Dad is perhaps the most important label we can all hope to have. You all have my respect and admiration just for taking it on. I’ve been a father for 8 years and I’m looking forward to being one the rest of my life.

She’s never going to be allowed to date however….

Related articles by Zemanta

• Happy Father’s Day (bngiowa.com)
• Father’s Day: The 15 Best Movie Dads (screenrant.com)
• Amazing dads, single dads, at-home dads, ALL dads, Happy Day (video) (ritawatson.com)
• Wish your old man a Happy Fathers Day with a personalised card at … (atomiurl.com)

Word Cloud for Dave Mabus Website

If you’ve ever spent any appreciable time on science blogs and forums, you may have had the occasion to read one of these really strangely worded and formated posts by a character who calls himself Dave Mabus.

So what’s he on about?

According to him, he’s been waging a “propaganda war” for the last three years against atheists, skeptics, and rationalists. As you can see from the word cloud above, he’s nearly as fixated on James “The Amazing” Randi as he is Nostradamus. More so than even atheists. Other special favorites of Markuze are PZ Myers, Phil Plait and Richard Dawkins. Apparently he’s even threatened PZ Myers’ life and, according to one science forum I visit on occasion, Markuze has threatened to hack them or shut them down with a DoS attack.

But why? What’s his Beef?

Markuze seems to think that he has a special gift of prophecy and that he’s waging a war against blasphemy. He very often cites quatrains of Nostradamus as justification for his lunacy, but he clearly ignores the fact that Nostradamus is well-debunked by rational and critical looks at his quatrains (short, poetic prophecies of dubious and vague nature). He cites vague passages that could truly refer to any number of events in history, but somehow they hold special meaning for Markuze.

Markuze is, however, clearly a person in need of psychological help if his personality is accurately portrayed in his words, spammed across hundreds of blogs and forums. In several posts, and on his website, he threatens violence and displays extreme hatred for those who don’t think like he does. For instance, he writes on his site, “so why don’t you all [atheists] go shoot yourselves in the HEAD [sic], surely better than your miserable lives?”

A few lines of text later, Markuze appeals to popularity in arguing against atheists, stating that we’ve “adopted a position against 98% of the human race, both past and present” but he cites no figures to support this. Still, theists are admittedly a majority in the world. But there are reliable figures that atheism and the non-religious are  currently 10-13% of the world’s population if not more. In some nations, the percentage of non-believers is as high as 30% (see WikiPedia: Demographics of Atheism)

Markuze also speaks of an “atheist purge” in his rants, telling the world to “[p]lease keep your atheists in check, or we will…”

And he claims to have had a “simple” objective:

1) to reveal that Nostradamus was a genuine prophet who could predict the future with 100% accuracy;

2) to demonstrate that prophecy and atheism are not compatible with each other and are mutually exclusive;

3) therefore dawkins, pz, randi and their skeptic atheist followers were deluded liars…

Looking through his site, painful on the eyes as it was, there was no indication that he gave any “proof” of Nostradamus’ predictive power. If anything, he confirmed the silliness of believing in that sort of thing. And I would agree with Markuze that prophecy and atheism are incompatible. Prophecy is built on fantasy, wishful thinking and a desire to influence groups of people. Most “prophecies” in biblical mythology and the vague, rambling quatrains of Nostradamus were so vague as to be easily attributed to many historical events that were to follow their publication. Some, especially those in biblical mythology, were written after the fact or were self full-filled. To an extent, this is the nature of Nostradamus’ prophecies: the are self full-filled by those that interpret events to fit a quatrain only after the fact. As a prophecy, any given quatrain of Nostradamus is worthless since they have zero predictive power.

One can only guess at the psychological workings of Markuze that lead him to his conclusions in number 3. His inclusion of a “therefore” seems to indicate that the first two points were premises or a logical argument, but they appear true only in his mind.

So what informs Markuze’s fantasies? Where does he get the ideas for the web of delusion and hatred and loathing for atheists that has polluted and influenced his thinking?

The clues are in his posts and rants. Particularly in his choice of pseudonyms. “Mabus” is a fictional character from the science fiction television series First Wave, which aired from 1998 to 2001. It featured a pair of heroes who were dispatching Gua, aliens bent on taking over the Earth, in an underground “war” which was fueled by propaganda generated by tech-savvy ”Crazy” Eddie (Rob LaBelle). The aliens were evil and using science as their weapon against humanity. “Crazy” Eddie was a Nostradamus buff who was using quatrains to track and kill the atheists. I mean aliens.

Mabus is a name that really exists in the fictional writings of Nostradamus, so clearly this is where the show’s writers obtained the name. It was also the name Nostradamus gave for the “anti-christ,” that person who is supposed to be the “anti-” version of another fictional character but of biblical mythology.

The real question is why does Markuze choose the name “Mabus” as his pseudonym, knowing that this is the name of the anti-christ? My guess is that it has to do with Markuze’s dual personality, one of a polar nature.

Related articles by Zemanta

• I get email (scienceblogs.com)
• Episode XXXIX: Play ‘Spot the Moron!’ (scienceblogs.com)
• Hardcore and Hard (scienceblogs.com)
• Atheists celebrate lack of faith (news.bbc.co.uk)
• Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent? (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)
• Symphony of Science – The Poetry of Reality (An Anthem for Science) (theworldison.blogspot.com)

Image via Wikipedia

An article, published online in August 2009 in the International Journal of Cardiology^[1] appeals to superstition and pseudoscience Muslim style. The purpose of the article seems only to push a religious, spiritual agenda under the guise of being an historical account of what the authors of early Islamic mythology knew about human anatomy, etiology and pathology as they relate to diseases of the heart and cardiovascular system. The abstract of the article is freely available and reads:

Descriptions of the human anatomy derived from religious texts are often omitted from the medical literature. The present review aims to discuss the comments and commentaries made regarding the heart and cardiovascular system as found in the Qur’an and Hadeeth. Based on this review, it is clear that these early sources both had a good comprehension of these parts of the body.

There is, perhaps, good reason why medical literature omits anatomical descriptions derived from religious mythology: there are better, more reliable sources.

In the article’s introduction, the authors state:

within the Qur’an and Hadeeth are accurate descriptions of anatomical structures, surgical procedures, physiological characteristics, and medical remedies. In particular, prophylaxis of general diseases is emphasized by encouraging physical activity, herbal and organic remedies, and spiritual revitalization. Notably, within these two texts, is the emphasis on the heart and blood as both a vehicle for life and as an organ central to affecting emotion and attitude.

What’s really found in Islamic mythology is what’s generally found in most ancient mythology when it comes to discussions of the human heart. Mentions of an organ with a supernatural quality of seating the soul or being a spiritual center of the individual. When passages are talking about “disease” and “health” of the individual, it appears to be spiritual rather than physical. The authors of this paper admit to these metaphorical and “spiritual” usages of heart, indeed they spend four out of five paragraphs in the section of their paper designated “4.2 Heart” and only a single paragraph describing what they view as anatomical and physiological descriptions of the heart. One passage they quote from Islamic mythology is “[b]eware! There is a piece of flesh in the body if it remains healthy the whole body becomes healthy, and if it is diseased, the whole body becomes diseased.”

In this passage, the authors are guilty of looking at Iron Age mythology through the lens of space age common knowledge. From the point of view of a fourth century goat herder, a healthy heart meant living a pious life, and a diseased body was the individual consumed by their evil or immorality. This hadith is about the mythical angel Gabriel removing sin in the form of Satan from the inner being -the spiritual self- of Mohammed. The common thought of the period was that the heart was the center of “knowing” and “truth” and that if a demon were to dwell in a human, it would dwell in the heart. There is no more anatomical and pathological understanding of the human heart being displayed here than by Aztec kings and priests who removed the still-beating hearts of their sacrificial victims.

Loukas et al conclude their paper with:

The heart is extensively described as both an organ of psyche, intelligence, and emotion, as well as an important body of the organ that can be harmed such as exhibiting thrombi. An in-depth analysis of the contribution of Islamic medicine in anatomy, physiology, and health is severely lacking in the west and, if conducted, would uncover that discoveries made by European scientists were actually made centuries prior, within the vast Islamic empire.

I fail to see how the superstitious perspective of any mythology on the heart is important enough to be published in a scholarly journal of medical science such as this. It would make  a fine addition to any journal of religious studies or mythology. I would even see a valuable contribution to an historical journal since so much of human history is derived and influenced by mythology. The west, and science in general, should have little interest in what Bronze and Iron Age goat herders thought about human anatomy. There’s simply nothing that is revealed by Islamic mythology for them. Nor is there any indication that the authors of early Islamic mythology possessed knowledge of human anatomy that wasn’t already understood. Their mentions of the “heart” and other cardiovascular system components is related to “spiritual” health, morality, and piety not pathology or etiology.

Related articles by Zemanta

• How to dissect a body on your iPhone (cnn.com)
• The Heart (slideshare.net)
• Books For First Year Medical Students (scrubnotes.blogspot.com)

1. doi:10.1016 / j.ijcard.2009.05.011, the heart and cardiovascular system in the Qur’an and Hadeeth

Its often said that organizing atheists is like herding cats. And, while cliche, it’s probably closer to truth than not. Recent polls and surveys in the United States reveal a large and growing segment of the population who consider “none” to be their religious affiliation. Within the “nones” are, of course, atheists. And the “nones” dominate as much as 20% of the populations in some states.

According to the August 2009 Gallup Poll^[1], the none/atheist/agnostic category averages at 13.2% for the United States with at least 7 states exceeding 20% in this category.

"Nones" in the U.S. is a Growing population.

But, despite their large size (larger than Jewish populations and even blacks in many states), atheists aren’t an organized minority. This is because atheism really isn’t a political position or even a worldview. Atheism simply means that the individual stands unconvinced by arguments and claims for gods. Most atheists have no desire to spread “atheism” or convince others of their doubts. However, there are some, like myself, who do want to share their beliefs and who hope to convince others others that reasons for believing in gods are lacking and worth questioning if not outright harmful in some ways. And there are many more who want to let other atheits know that they’re not alone in their lack of belief.

The recent comments of DART officials in Iowa and by the governor of Iowa, Chet Culver, reveal the apprehension -the fear- that the religious have regarding the notion that atheists -nonbelievers- might organize. Should this happen, we would instantly become a minority with a voice -a voting presence that can effect change in policy. The very thing that the religious have been striving for (particularly the fundamentally religious) for decades with mixed success. Anyone who could move a non-religious minority with the potential to be as large as the numbers above, could feasibly eliminate religious goals and efforts from public policy. Issues like abortion, gay rights, women’s rights, public education standards, stem cell research, and others would be all but won since the mode of oppression within these issues is religious superstition. Without the weight of religious opinion and the so-called “religious right,” opponents of these issues would be forced to resort to reason and logic to argue their points and convince the middle.

In such a light, an ad on a public bus that reads, “Don’t believe in god? Your not alone” becomes a serious threat. The last thing the religious want, particularly those religious figures who hold positions of power and influence, is for the irreligious to realize just how large a group they are; or just how influential they can really be.

Which is why its important for atheists to not be uncomfortable or afraid to voice their atheism in their day to day lives. When asked about my religious affiliation at work or in social gatherings, I don’t hesitate to point out that I’m an atheist. The nature of the conversation dictates the delivery (sometimes its humorous, sometimes its pointed or blunt). I don’t wear my atheism on my sleave (though I did have the little “A” on my tie once), but if the subject is brought up, I’m there to meet it head on.

Part of the reason is that I know that there are other atheists out there and who are afraid to acknowledge it publicly or, perhaps, even privately. Another reason is that there are many religious people who just cannot fathom that they know anyone who doesn’t believe in a god. For them, if I believed in a god who looked like a blue elephant, this would be easier to understand than not believing in a god at all (that “belief in belief” that Dennett discusses in Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon).

I like injustices like the DART response to the “offense” of the ad that “never should have been allowed on the bus” to begin with. Injustices like these serve to bring atheists together and to organize us faster and more efficiently than trying to reach out in normal grass-roots methods. The atheosphere, that space on the internet where atheist bloggers converge, is alive and active. But the atheist brand needs more exposure. We need to be seen as a force to be acknowledged; as a force that won’t go away; and as one that is to be respected. When that happens, we’ll have initiates that want to join our club.

This analogy might be wrong, but I think that’s one of the things that happened with the advent of the so-called “new atheists” -vocal authors and media personalities who spoke out, primarily in the wake of 9/11, of the negative nature of religion. This “new atheist” movement (if I can give in to the label for a moment) served as a rally point for like-minded and non-religious people the world over, but primarily in the United States. I know personally of several people who previously did not identify as atheist or agnostic (one even considered himself Christian) but do now after having read Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett and/or Harris as well as other “new atheist” authors.

If the post-9/11 “new atheist” awakening was the first step, then its time for step 2: Atheists must converge beyond the atheosphere and find a voice that resonates throughout society.

It is then that we’ll start effecting real change. The proof of this is in Iowa, where DART has agreed to put the bus ads back up. Evidently they received more calls and emails complaining that they were removed than they did complaining that they were up.

Bravo atheists.

Related articles by Zemanta

• The folly of pretence (guardian.co.uk)
• Atheism is not a belief system, ok? Got that? Why must we repeat ourselves? (endhereditaryreligion.com)
• The Striking Correlation Between a State’s Religion and Its Politics (usnews.com)

1. http://www.gallup.com/poll/122075/Religious-Identity-States-Differ-Widely.aspx#2

I had the pleasure of discussing morality and atheism with a commenter who I would assume is a Christian although his/her actual beliefs haven’t been specifically discussed. In responding to the second of two posts the commenter left, I realized that I rambled on far longer than a general comment, so I thought I’d go ahead and repost it as a separate post of its own.

In this post, you’ll see me discuss the capacity for Morality (big “M” ) among humans, giving rise to the cultural establishment of moral (little “m” ) codes. I make an analogy to the human capacity for Language (big “L” ) which gives rise to the cultural establishment of languages (little “l” ). I don’t know if this analogy holds -I haven’t really thought it through- and I’m not arguing that the capacities of Morality and Language are part of the same genetic mechanism or have the shared origins.

I’ll begin with Robin Leboe’s comment today and follow with my response, both of which can be found in the Myths of Atheism: HIlter/Stalin/Pol Pot were evil because of atheism thread.

Robin Leboe, on July 1st, 2008 at 8:26 am Said:

Leaving aside the definition of atheism for the moment, the properties of atheism can be examined regardless of how it’s defined. For instance, one attribute of atheism I’m sure we can agree on is the lack of a transcendent source for an objective moral law.

If there is no transcendant being then any truly objective principles under girding existence are illusory. Your reference to evil in the post above hangs in a vacuum. Any attempt to codify right and wrong takes a leap into another realm i.e Platonic ideals.

Right and wrong are simply not an inherent property of ‘being without gods’ and morals are relegated to utilitarian, pragmatic, subjective or emotive trappings. A function of culture at best or the opinion of an individual at worst. Neitsche was very honest in driving home this point when writing of the ‘death of God’.

It is this lack of ultimate moral arbitration that people often point to when they speak of the atrocities advanced by cultures who have, by your definition, disavowed themselves of a belief in God.

On the other hand, atrocities committed by religious zealots can clearly be seen to be in opposition to the moral law they espouse. The teachings of Christ leave no interpretive room whatever for the inquisition or crusades. Many societies and institutions have been hijacked by lunatics, both theist and atheist. As it is often said, it’s not a good idea to judge a philosophy (or faith) by its adherents.

Thanks for the cordial discussion and taking time to respond to my previous reply.

I’m willing to take the transcendent source point further and say that you can insert “for anything” after “transcendent source.”

Transcendent refers to that which is “beyond comprehension” or “independent of the material universe.” I, of course, see no good reason to believe such a definition is needed since there is no evidence of anything existing “beyond the material universe.” In addition, I see no reason (and history bears this out) that this material universe can at least be potentially comprehended. I concede that I know very little of the universe and will likely learn only a fraction more when compared with the potential things that can be known, but I refuse to accept that there is anything unknowable about the universe or that anything exists beyond the knowable universe. Gods, magic, ghosts, and hobgoblins included.

But that’s me. If anyone knows otherwise and can demonstrate that knowledge, however, I’m open to revising my position.

Moving on to your other points, the very argument that morality is “divinely established” is an argument that isn’t sound nor is it cogent. That’s because the premises fail. If the conclusion is “God establishes morality,” then the premises followed by the conclusion must be:

1. humans have not the capacity for morality without God;
2. only God can provide morality;
3. morality exists in humanity;
4. thus God exists and establishes morality.

The premises fail for several reasons. The actual god in question is not identified. There are thousands upon thousands of extant and extinct religious cults in human history through present day, most with pantheons of gods. Yet, morality has flourished throughout human history. Were humans prior to the very recent cults of Judeo-Christian doctrine immoral? Hardly. We have a very detailed and accurate account of moral behavior in ancient societies. Indeed, our own democratic-republic form of government is based largely on one such pantheistic, but moral, society.

Further, there are countless similarities cross-culturally that exhibit very similar moral behaviors that are independent of a single religious superstition. For instance: in no extant or extinct culture that I’m aware of is it morally acceptable to murder one’s parents in order to take their property.

Very clearly, the preceding two paragraphs show that morality is a human endeavor and not a divine one and, therefore, humans provide their own morality, much in the same way we provide our own language. Language (big “L” ) is a human endeavor. We establish individual languages (little “l” ) based on the capacity for Language. Perhaps the human establishment of morality is a function of the capacity for Morality (big “M” ) [incidentally, I'm hypothesizing here more than arguing a position in order to show that divinity need not be the answer when one is ignorant of an explanation].

The only premise in the divine establishment of morality argument that is valid is that humans have morality. If morality is established by humanity (since it exists cross-culturally, independent of religious doctrine, and prior to modern concepts of God, then it clearly is), then humans have the capacity for morality without gods and gods are not necessary to provide morality.

The very evidence for the existence of morality and zero evidence for the existence of God invalidates nearly completely the argument that morality is established by God. There is, of course, the slim chance that a hidden god has created morality -but this begs the question and provides not a single bit of cogency to the argument. After all, how would one know he/she was praying to the right god if that god is hidden?

I won’t pretend to know why humans have a capacity for Morality any more than I know why they have a capacity for Language or Music. There is much about cognitive science that is unknown (though advances in the last decade are tremendous!), but I certainly see no logical or rational reason to settle on a god-explanation simply because I don’t have an answer. Thankfully, there have been enough rationally minded people in the history of scientific discovery who have sought answers beyond the god-explanation for lightning, weather, crop failure, disease, etc

Thank you again for taking the opportunity to post on an atheist blog and participating in discussion. I realize that many of the blogs and forums in the “atheosphere” are rather harsh and hostile to Christian and theist posters. I also realize that my own casual use of terms like cult, superstition, and the like are likely to be taken as offensive to the believer and religious adherent, but is an honest position and opinion that I hold and not intended to be solely pejorative.

In his encyclical released on Friday, Pope Benedict states atheism is responsible for some of the “greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice” in history [1].

Did Pope Ratzinger skip the new-pope class that explains the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades?

This is a common myth that arises during debates with theists or in theistic arguments as in books or articles, particularly with Christian theists. The argument goes something like, “of course atheism is bad for the world, just look at what Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot did in the name of atheism [2].”

On the cuff of it, the argument is one which is post hoc ergo propter hoc, that is to say, it’s a false cause fallacy. More subtly, the argument is also an ad hominem, since the theist that argues this point is attempting to discredit his atheist opponents. The theist is safe in making his claim that atheism leads to evil since he has plausible deniability since, ostensibly, he’s only making an argument against atheism. However, this only holds true if the claim itself is true. As a simple argument form, it would be:

If atheism leads to evil, it cannot be true.
Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot were atheists.
Atheism cannot be true.

However, as you can see, there are some problems with the argument as a modus ponens. The conclusion does not follow from the premises, and this is why:

1) There is no reason why truth cannot lead to evil.

2) Premise #2 is really a complex premise that contains one or more sub premises. It assumes factually that these three personalities were indeed atheists, that they were indeed evil, and that their evil was informed by their atheism. Even if the first two of these sub premises were agreed upon, and it seems reasonable to do so, there is no reason to believe that their atheism informed their evil actions. In fact, there is ample evidence to suggest that at least two of the three personalities were significantly influenced by religion, specifically Christianity, early in their lives.

3) Since premises 1 and 2 do not hold up, the conclusion cannot follow from the premises.

As an ad hominem argument, the Hitler/Stalin/Pot argument is typically a tu quoque, or “you too,” made in response to the claim that religion is responsible for the deaths of millions through the inquisition, Crusades, genocides, New World invasion, etc.

Never has a causal effect been demonstrated by any historian (much less a theist in a debate) between atheism and the actions of, say, Stalin. Stalin ordered the deaths of thousands because he deemed them a threat to his government –a government that was dogmatic and powerful. Indeed, on could easily argue that Stalin’s position was that he “replaced” God and inserted himself as the national deity with statues and portraits in all public (and many private) lands and buildings. Those that carried out his death warrants did so because they believed in Stalin –because they “worshiped” him.

There are no gulags or concentration camps in recorded history that were designed to fulfill a “lack of belief” in something, which is what atheism is. None were constructed to destroy lives out of reason or rational thought, which is what informs the atheistic conclusion.

For another post that gives a very good treatment of yet another Myth of Atheism, see Vjack’s Atheism Does NOT Require Faith, which posted just yesterday as I was writing this. These are the sorts of things I’m glad to see Atheists write about and, perhaps, I’ll put together a set of links for reference to these and other Myths of Atheism posted here and elsewhere in the near future. I’ve some good ideas for the “Pages” feature that comes with WordPress, so keep checking back.

Notes

[1] Catholic News (11 Jan 2008). Hope encyclical rejects atheism.

[2] D’Souza, Dinesh (2007). What’s So Great About Christianity?: Chicago: Regenery Press, p 221. “the indisputable fact is that all the religions of the world put together have in three hundred years not managed to kill anywhere near the number of people killed in the name of atheism in the past few decades […] Atheism, not religion, is responsible for the worst mass murders of history.”

Harris Poll Interactive conducted a recent poll in November in which they sampled 2,455 American adults and asked a variety of questions regarding the their beliefs, mostly religious, though they did poll with questions about UFOs, ghosts, reincarnation, and the like.

The tables of some of their results can be found at Harris Poll Interactive, but I’ve put some of these results in graphic format should anyone wish to use them. If you do, I only ask that you include a link back to Breaking Spells.

I can’t help but wonder how many people answer polls like this based on what they want others to think about them rather than what they really believe. I’ve always had a hard time accepting that people truly believe in virgin birth and miracles to the degree represented above. Surely there’s more hope that miracles exist and that Jesus was born of a virgin than actually fully believe it. But its interesting to see that evolution edged out ahead of creationism, particularly given some of the other responses about miracles, and the “word of God” (below).

What? The Book of Mormon isn’t strongly held to be the “word” of God? And what’s the deal with the Old Testament slightly beating the New Testament? This is a bit telling if you ask me: Christians are slightly more willing to accept that OT is the “word” of God over the NT -and it’s in the OT that some of the best hatred and bigotry can be justified.

And it’s also interesting to note that the “not at all religious” and “not very religious” categories together out-weigh the “very religious” category.

Anyway, these types of polls are often difficult to accept since even the methodology section of the Harris Interactive site doesn’t reveal enough details to know how effective the pollsters were at delivering the questions or what most of the actual questions were (or their contexts). Even the tone of voice carried by the pollster can influence the answer.

I’ll still add these graphs to the Data page along with a citation and link.

On December 6, O’Reilly interviewed Lori Lipman Brown, the former Nevada state senator and currently the director and lobbyist for the Secular Coalition for America. This was in the wake of the Mitt Romney’s speech on “why my Mormon faith isn’t a problem.”

Brown’s interaction with O’Reilly was very good and I think she did a decent job holding her own and representing the rational perspective. She took umbrage with Romney’s statement that American’s believe in God, pointing out that he completely ignored 30 million plus non-religious (secularist, atheist, and agnostic) Americans.O’Reilly made the usual ass of himself by creating the ad hominem arguments against those that don’t accept his superstitions by referring to them as “whining” several times.

Predictably, O’Reilly makes the usual nutjob claims about the U.S. being founded on belief in God, etc., to which Brown successfully counters by pointing out that the United States is not ruled by the Declaration of Independence but, rather, the Constitution, a document which specifically omits talk religious and god-talk by design since those that wanted a secular nation won that argument then.

She also puts him in his place with the “incessant whining” ad hominem by pointing out that 30 million people were excluded and Romney is running for an office that represents all Americans.

[vodpod id=Groupvideo.606092&w=425&h=350&fv=%26rel%3D0%26] from vodpod.com posted with vodpod

VJack [Atheist Revolution] has a post up on the recent plight of Jeremy Hall, a Specialist in the U.S. Army stationed in Iraq, and a true hero. Not only is he serving his country in a combat zone, but he’s also standing up for the United States Constitution and the very Freedoms that he swore to uphold when he joined the military. SPC Hall, I salute you.Hall’s plight is one that involved his attempt to organize a group of atheists and non-Christians for a social meeting approved by an Army chaplain. One of the attendees turned out to be a Christian and an officer that had nothing good to offer to the group. Indeed, he ordered the group to discontinue the meeting and threatened his junior with non-judicial punishment. These are acts of cowardice such as this on the part of Major Welborne, the Christian who allowed his religious delusion to override his rationality and duty as an officer in the US Army. Duty, honor, country are buzzwords I’m sure this disgrace to the uniform I once wore likes to drop at cocktail parties at the Officer’s Club, but I doubt Welborne truly understands their meaning. It would appear, instead, that he fits them into his own religious delusion, preferring that Christianity be imposed upon all soldiers, regardless of their own beliefs. Ironically, this is the very nature of the enemy Welborne istasked to combat: the Muslim extremists who think that anyone who chooses to leave Islam should be put to death and those that aren’t yet Muslims should be converted or killed.Does that make Welborne a terrorist? With the constantly moving goalposts of that definition in our current administration, who can really say? But there’s no doubt that, for his patriotism, Hall is being terrorized. After being named a plaintiff in a lawsuit against the Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and after he refused to join hands in a cult prayer at an earlier time, Hall has had his life threatened on various blogs and directly threatened by members of his unit. When your faith requires that you threaten others who question it, is it really all that good of a faith?Its clear that religious nutters within the military have an opinion on how religion should be treated and presented, but what does the official word say?Army Regulation 165-1, Chaplain Activities in the United States Army, includes the following:

Even though the chaplain is an ecclesiastically endorsed representative of his or her faith group, the chaplain has the responsibility to confront the command when the religious rights of any soldier are affected (AR 165-1, 1-4, b).

“Religious rights” also includes the right not to have a particular religious cult imposed upon a soldier that doesn’t believe in the cult’s doctrines. Indeed, this regulation is contrary to the coerced participation in cult activities and prayers that Hall was subjected to. If anyone should be subjected to UCMJ action, it is the officers in charge of these events.

The Army recognizes that religion is constitutionally protected and does not favor one form of religious expression over another (AR 165-1, 3-3, a).

Expression of one’s lack of religion or one’s opinion of religion is also a form of religious expression.

Distinctive faith group leaders may provide ministry on an exception to policy basis when military chaplains are not available to meet the faith group coverage requirements of soldiers and their families.Distinctive faith group leaders—(1) Are normally volunteers.(2) Do not function as military chaplains.(3) Must be sponsored and supervised by an assigned chaplain.(4) May receive offerings at services they conduct with the funds being handled IAW chapter 14 of this regulation.(5) Will receive no payment for their services, travel, or other expenses from APF (unless under contract). Military members will not be paid. However, if these leaders are nonmilitary full-time ordained clergy, they may be contracted. Pay rates will not exceed the contract prices for civilian clergy contracted with APF.(6) Will not perform collective Protestant services (AR 165-1, 5-5, a, b)

Hall’s meeting adhered to these requirements.Army Regulation 1-211, Attendance of Military and Civilian Personnel at Private Organization Meetings, includes the following:

Attendance at meetings at Government expense will be authorized only when information gained will substantially benefit the approving authority’s mission (AR 1-211, 4).

Hall’s meeting of atheists and non-Christians did, indeed, benefit the unit, the approving authority of which the chaplain represented. Soldiers who find themselves in the midst of so many religious nutters, who are forcing their religious doctrines upon non-believers, and coercing non-believers to participate in cult activities like prayers, will likely feel alienated and alone. By allowing them to meet socially and discuss their worldviews, the non-believers in the unit would find support and human fellowship with likeminded individuals, having a positive increase in their esprit de corps as they continued with their daily mission for the unit. Any commander that wouldn’t allow these individuals to meet on their own time has another agenda that overrides his or her military mission.Department of Defense Directive 1300.17, Accommodation of Religious Practices Within the Military Services, includes:

3.1. A basic principle of our nation is free exercise of religion. The Department of Defense places a high value on the rights of members of the Armed Forces to observe the tenets of their respective religions. It is DoD policy that requests for accommodation of religious practices should be approved by commanders when accommodation will not have an adverse impact on military readiness, unit cohesion, standards, or discipline.

While the language of both of this directive is geared toward individual religious cults like Methodists, Lutherans, Catholics, Hindis, etc., it doesn’t take much effort to infer from it the intent, which is to allow soldiers who have a diversity of religious opinions and beliefs to feel comfortable and secure and to express these opinions and beliefs where appropriate as well as included to foster a sense of esprit de corps.As a 12-year veteran of the US Army (1984-1996), I understand the necessity of esprit de corps and having strong morale while taking part in extended combat operations.

4.3. When requests for accommodation are not in the best interest of the unit and continued tension between the unit’s requirements and the individual’s religious beliefs is apparent, administrative actions should be considered. These actions may include, but are not limited to, assignment, reassignment, reclassification, or separation. Nothing in this Directive precludes action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (reference (d)) in appropriate circumstances.

This part of the DoD directive is interesting. For the unit commander with a head on his or her shoulders, for a commander that has his or her unit’s mission as primary goal, recognizing that not all the soldiers in his or her command is a Christian and may actually have other, or even no, religious beliefs would be something that commander should be aware of and be willing to address. And the best way of addressing such an issue would be to allow alternatives for these soldiers to express themselves or to associate with each other without the influence of Christianity; and certainly without Christian believers coercing them. The result would be that these soldiers would feel included and a part of a team that has diversity. Such esprit de corps creates the sense that one belongs to something greater than a religion or a religious opinion; and as a former military leader, I know of nothing greater to belong to than a unit that respects its members and where its members respect each other –regardlessof internal disagreement or shortcomings.Stand your ground, Jeremy Hall. You’re a hero.Edit: This is a re-post from my previous blog at blogspot (which was, for some reason, removed by blogger -no word yet why). VJack has since created another post on this topic that is certainly worth reading, as are the comments: Atheists in the Military [atheistrevolution.blogspot.com]

Related Links