I’m a bit of a definition junkie. I think it comes from studying philosophy. It seems that most of the big questions are difficult to answer because the terms involved turn out to be so ill-defined. Thus much of the efforts in philosophy is not really aimed at answering the big questions, but precisely defining the words and concepts in the question. If that is achieved the answer usually falls right out.

So I’ve recently been thinking about the term “Godless” – often used as a derogatory term for agnostics and atheists. Literally it means “without god” but carries with it a very negative connotation. It suggests non-believers lack something or are missing something desirable. Think of the term ‘penniless’ for comparison.

That doesn’t accurately describe an atheist’s feeling on the matter at all. We do not feel like we are lacking anything for we don’t desire a god at all (such would be pointless as they are almost certainly fiction). I wanted a better term and found it in an unlikely place.

It turns out, couples who do not want children are in a similar situation. They are often described as being ‘childless’ though they don’t feel they are lacking anything. Thus they’ve adopted the term ‘childfree‘. Similarly, I’ve been using the term ‘godfree’.

Strictly speaking, ‘Godless’ and ‘godfree’ mean the same thing: “without god(s)”; though the capital ‘G’ implies monotheism and the lowercase is exclusive of polytheistic deities as well. Yet they have different connotations. Being something-less means one is without something desired. Being something-free means one is without something undesired. People who do not want caffeine in their soda will drink ‘caffeine-free’ soda, those who want children but are unable to have them are ‘childless’. Atheists, by and large, do not want any gods and do not have any. Thus the term ‘godfree’ is more appropriate.

It has occurred to me that precisely defining these terms in this way has a very interesting consequence. To understand it, you’ll have to adopt my point of view for a moment. Go ahead, it won’t hurt… There! A little uncomfortable, I’m sure, but you won’t have to wear it long. Now notice that there are no gods. Good. What’s that mean for religious people? They are without any gods for none exist but they desire a god (or gods). Which term, ‘Godless’ or ‘godfree’ is more appropriate? Using the definitions described above, you’ve guessed it….

…Religious people are the Godless ones!

Thanks for reading whether you’re godfree or Godless.

Recently, Roger Ebert wrote a wonderful essay about death – his death in particular. Overall, I think his attitude towards his own demise is a very healthy one. It also shows that one can approach the end of life fearlessly without any belief in an afterlife.

I know it is coming, and I do not fear it, because I believe there is nothing on the other side of death to fear. I hope to be spared as much pain as possible on the approach path. I was perfectly content before I was born, and I think of death as the same state. What I am grateful for is the gift of intelligence, and for life, love, wonder, and laughter.

He goes on to write:

But certainly, some readers have informed me, it is a tragic and dreary business to go into death without faith. I don’t feel that way. “Faith” is neutral. All depends on what is believed in. I have no desire to live forever. The concept frightens me.

I’ve had that very same fear when I did believe in an afterlife. Another option, annihilation, is much more appealing. My reasoning is captured in a Nietzsche quote, “Against boredom the gods themselves fight in vain.” Immortality sounds more like a burden than bonus to me. Others go even further, “I prefer not continuing to exist merely at the whim of a deity.”

The entire essay is well worth the read. Also of interest is a discussion of personal death that took place after this essay was posted on Dawkins’s website. It’s good insight into how non-believers think about their own inevitable demise.

On a side note, Ebert links to an interesting religious quiz in his essay. It’s purpose is to rank worldviews according to their compatibility with your beliefs. You can see my results below the fold.

Read the rest of this entry »

I am an Unaffiliatist (among other things) – that is, I am unaffiliated with any religion. I’m also a statistic. According to the results of a recent Pew survey that explores how Americans change religions, “The group that has grown the most in recent years due to religious change is the unaffiliated population.” 16% of the U.S. population identify with having no religion while only 7% were raised that way.

They list a few reasons these apostates gave up religion. For instance, about 40% no longer believed in God or the teachings of any religion. More interestingly many left their religion because they felt it was too rule-based or because the leaders were more concerned with money or power than spirituality. It seems that the movement to inject evangelical Christianity into U.S. politics has backfired. They failed to learn from history that separation of church and state is beneficial for both institutions.

One reason for leaving one’s religion that was not very prominent in the survey was that science disproves religion. This means that science-based arguments against religion are not a major factor in creating apostates. The self-destructive antics of the religions themselves are much more effective. The anti-religion segment of non-believers that list science as a reason get quite a lot of attention but actually make up a small percentage of the unaffiliated population. I compare this to the way fundamentalist Christians get more coverage than mainstream ones.

Theologically speaking, I self-identify as a ‘deist-agnostic’, which really functions no differently than modern atheism. I live my life as if there is no God. So why even use the ‘deist’ label, why not just use ‘atheist’ or even ‘agnostic’? Sometimes I do. It depends on the situation, the audience, and the level of detail I feel like going into at the time. It’s impractical to list all situations where a theological label would come up, but I’ll give you a few. I’ll use ‘deist’ is social situations in which I know ‘atheist’ will cause unwanted trouble (I live and work in the Bible Belt of the United States). I use ‘atheist’ when discussing particular religions since I don’t believe in the god(s) of that religion. Also, I use the more precise ‘deist-agnostic’ when discussing theology and/or am interested in starting such a discussion.

My deist identity came up when discussing an interesting post about deism and skepticism with Thor’Ungal. I ended up explain the basis of my deism in light of my skepticism. The answer is the cosmological argument (CA):

1. A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.
2. This contingent being has a cause of or explanation[1] for its existence.
3. The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
4. What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
5. Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
6. Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
7. Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.

Read the rest of this entry »

This post is a response to the December 11th episode of Raborn Johnson and Steve Sensenig’s wonderful podcast Beyond the Box. The podcast is basically the two’s take on Christianity free from the interpretational filter of organized religion. Even as a non-believer, I find the podcast intelligent, thought provoking, and entertaining. I highly recommend listening to them. I especially recommend listening to this episode in order to fully understand my response.

Hello Steve and Raborn,

Thanks for tackling this topic and answering some of my questions. It’s challenging but very interesting. You guys approach your beliefs with an astounding mixture of enthusiasm and intelligence. As I listen, I’m amazed at how well you anticipate my next question and then proceed to answer it. It enabled you to cut straight to the heart of the issue. You can color me impressed… again.

First, allow me to express my thoughts on historical accounts and why I have my doubts about the resurrection of Jesus so that you can get an idea of where I’m coming from. There are at least a couple of ways to verify that a historical event actually occurred. The best way is via multiple, first-hand accounts, as you two note. First-hand is best because it has only one layer of interpretation, bias, and embellishment. Multiple sources enable us to reduce said interpretations, biases, and embellishments via comparative analysis. A second way to verify is forensic/physical evidence. For the examples of Lincoln’s and Kennedy’s assassinations that you cite in your episode, we have bodies with bullet wounds to the skull, for instance. With respect to the resurrection, we have only second-hand accounts at best and no physical evidence.

Read the rest of this entry »

I live in North Carolina’s 8th district, I don’t believe in the Jedeo-Christian God, and because of that, I’m supremely frustrated and disgusted with my representatives in both the House and Senate. Last week, I saw this advertisement paid for by the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC). I write a letter.

Later that same day, I learn that my representative in the United States Congress, Robin Hayes, said the following at a McCain rally: “liberals hate real Americans that work and achieve and believe in God.” It took me a week, but I finally wrote a letter to him earlier today. Not even an hour after sending off that letter, I see this advertisement ‘approved’ by my Senatorial representative, Elizabeth Dole. It’s basically a modified version of the NRSC, so I sent Dole a modified letter.

You can read my specific responses to these in my letters (reprinted below the fold). But all three of them together reveal a trend: they are un-American. America is the land of the free where all people are free to believe (or not believe) whatever they choose and express themselves. Furthermore, we are all entitled representation in the federal government. The three items described above go beyond simple expression of disagreement – they actively seek to disenfranchise non-believers. They express a belief that is disturbingly wide-spread in the GOP; that atheists/agnostics don’t deserve representation. We’re not “real” Americans. Given that religious freedom is the first right explicitly protected in the Bill of Right, such activities are anti-democratic and un-American.

If you are a constituent of either of these two candidates, I encourage you to write them letters as well expressing your disapproval. I also encourage you to vote against them next Tuesday.

Read the rest of this entry »

The New Yorker has a fascinating article about differing views on human sexuality between conservatives and liberals. While there’s not much too terribly new in it (we already know liberals take a realistic approach to human sexuality that emphasizes family planning where conservatives want to dominate human sexuality through fear and misinformation), it’s well written and has some interesting insights. Here are a couple of excerpts:

[Social scientists and family-law scholars] Regnerus and Carbone and Cahn all see a new and distinct “middle-class morality” taking shape among economically and socially advantaged families who are not social conservatives. In Regnerus’s survey, the teen-agers who espouse this new morality are tolerant of premarital sex (and of contraception and abortion) but are themselves cautious about pursuing it.

Evangelicals are very good at articulating their sexual ideals, but they have little practical advice for their young followers. Social liberals, meanwhile, are not very good at articulating values on marriage and teen sexuality—indeed, they may feel that it’s unseemly or judgmental to do so. But in fact the new middle-class morality is squarely pro-family. Maybe these choices weren’t originally about values—maybe they were about maximizing education and careers—yet the result is a more stable family system.

For too long, the conventional wisdom has been that social conservatives are the upholders of family values, whereas liberals are the proponents of a polymorphous selfishness. This isn’t true, and, every once in a while, liberals might point that out.

Anyway, if you want a great overview of the opposed views of human sexuality, this article is well worth reading.

A little over a month ago, Skeptic published an online article called The Great Divide (scroll down after following the link). The author, Shawn Stover, writes about the functional value of Stephen Jay Gould’s non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA).

NOMA is the idea that science and religion are quests for knowledge in two completely separate areas of human understanding. Science address the empirical universe, and religion addresses ethical and spiritual concerns. As such, science and religion are not in conflict.

This view has been roundly rejected by both the ‘new’ atheists and creationists. They both point out that both fields do make separate claims about the same thing: the origin of humans. Their magisteria do overlap. The falsity of NOMA should be obvious if one considers the history of science and religion. For instance, the center of the solar system used to be identified differently by both fields of human endeavor.

Read the rest of this entry »

I just got back from seeing a pre-screening of Bill Maher’s new movie, Religulous. I found it quite enjoyable. It was very different from my usual, prefered method of approaching religious skepticism. I’m accustomed to the more intellectual approach championed by the likes of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. In contrast, Maher comes across very much as an everyday, average kind of guy. You know, the kind of person you’d want to have drink with in a bar or vote into the highest office on the planet.

Also different about this movie is that Maher doesn’t describe himself as an atheist. He’s more like Michael Shermer who describes himself as a militant agnostic – “I don’t know and you don’t either.” Maher goes one step further. Not only does he point out that religionists don’t know, but he points out that what they think they know is, as the movie title implies, ridiculous. But the admission that he doesn’t know the answers to life’s big questions is such a point of strength for him. He appears very humble next to the interviewees who express such absolute certitude.

True to Maher’s style, the movie was infused with humor, the best of which was often the looks on people’s faces as they react to him. Other moments are funny because of how surprising they were (I won’t give these away). His natural charm even enabled him to get laughs from people who clearly didn’t like him.

On the down side, this movie really didn’t offer any new insights or facts for the free thinker. Instead of being informative, it was merely entertaining, which I suppose is what a movie is supposed to be first and foremost. I think there is potential for the nominal religionist – the Christmas-and-Easter-only church goer, the “my parents were Christian so I guess I am too” crowd – to get something out of it. There’s enough meat for these types to say, “wow, there are some ridiculous aspects of my religion.”

Also, I would have liked to hear more about making the non-believer voice heard. Like Dawkins’ The God Delusion, Religulous points out that in America, the non-believing community is a huge minority; larger than jews, homosexuals, and NRA members combined and even larger the African American community. We need not be timid. Unfortunately, that point was only touched on.

Finally, there was an attempt in Religulous to tack on a message on the end. This message was not a theme throughout the movie nor was it built up to towards the end. It’s almost as if they felt obligated to ‘get serious’ before the credits. It simply didn’t work. I wish it had stuck with the theme of the movie, which was belief in ridiculous things can make people do ridiculous and sometimes dangerous things.

Overall, this movie is worth seeing. It’s shortcomings have no impact on it’s entertainment value. I recommend this to anyone who likes humor and is not overly sensitive about their own religion, if saddled with one.

In a post I wrote awhile back, I bemoaned the increasing prevalence of censorship done in the name of “tolerance”. It seems that I am not alone in my opinion. I found this opinion piece by Jo Glanville by way of a RichardDawkins.net reprint. In it, Glanville calls the corporate coward Random House Books to task for caving to threats of violence and reversing a decision to publish The Jewel of Medina.

“It was also disingenuous of Random House to suggest that the novel might incite violence. Certain members of the population might choose to commit an act of violence, but that is not the same as the book itself inciting violence. To pass the responsibility in this way to the novel was a betrayal of the author and of free speech.”

But Glanville brought something to my attention that I was unaware of. The Jewel of Medina will be published, at least in Britain. A small and brave publisher, Gibson Square Books, has signed a deal with the book’s author, Sherry Jones.

The decision by Gibson Square’s owner, Martin Rynja, was met with violence. Over the last weekend, Gibson Square’s offices suffered a fire bomb attack. No one was injured and three suspects are in custody.

In my opinion, the book sounds completely awful – it’s a historical fiction based on the romance between Mohammed and his prepubescent wife, Aisha. Despite that, I’m tempted to buy it just to rub it in the faces of these self-righteous assholes. More likely, I will purchase another book from the publisher simply to reward their dedication to free speech.

This above image is licensed by Windy Ed.