This time they are mischaracterising the Atheist Foundation of Australia’s “No Religion” campaign by stating (emphasis mine):

“While the census data is rightly used to assist the government to plan for services and infrastructure, other groups, including some atheists, are seeking to push their  agendas by encouraging people to leave the form blank.  Not every person who holds judeo-Christian values attends a church, but if enough of them leave this section blank, some will use this to minimize the importance of basic Christian values in this country.  We need to prove the size of the constituency who hold these values.”
Australian Christian Lobby

Firstly, the “No religion” campaign is not asking people to leave the question 19 of the Australian census blank.  The campaign web site clearly states that people should seriously consider their religious beliefs and answer the question honestly.

The central tenets of the Christian faith were determined by the Nicene Council in 325AD, and the overwhelming majority of Christian faith’s have agreed with the basics of the document.  You know the drill – there is one god who made everything, Jesus was born of a virgin, was tortured and crucified under Pontius Pilate, rose from the dead after three days, and sit at the right hand of the father awaiting to return and judge us all.

Seemingly embarrassed by this nonsense, the ACL are twisting (hoping?) the question actually asks:

“What is the person’s religious basis for their values?”

It asks nothing of the sort.

“Do unto others”

Moreover, what are these “religious values” to which they refer?  The ACL article is silent on the matter, but we atheists are often told god wrote the moral law in stone and gave them to Moses (although he broke that copy upon his return, but luckily god has a facsimile).  “Do unto others as they would do unto you”, “don’t steal”, “don’t murder” are often cited as examples of god’s perfect law.

The trouble is, we do not need a god to determine these values.  All human societies have exhibited these characteristics.  As a social species we have evolved to work in groups – helping each other survive and thrive.  Our instincts have been honed through innumerable generations to fight common enemies, rather than family members.  We “do unto others” out of an ultimately selfish desire not to be killed, or have our possessions stolen by one of our own.  These are humanist values.  They were not handed down by a genocidal and judgemental god.

If you adhere to “the golden rule”, but do not really believe Jesus rose from the dead, healed the blind with his spit, or walked on water, then for god’s sake tick the “other” box and write “humanist” in the space below.

Update: This article was kindly approved by the Richard Dawkins Foundation.  Thanks guys!

The excellent British broadcaster BBC 4 recently aired a fascinating program called “The Medieval Mind” which explores the philosophy, theology, and predominate thinking of the dark ages.  The first episode deals with knowledge and revealed numerous intriguing insights into how the medieval mind determined epistemological truths.

Monks, priests, and other godly people were in possession of books – a rare and expensive commodity. These tomes of learning were limited to the religious orders of the day which were responsible for interpreting and disseminating the knowledge through the lens of the predominate theology of the day.  What the church said was gospel truth and nobody dared risk their soul or questioned the will of God as revealed by his representatives on Earth.  The religious order would spend lifetimes reading texts, learning, and debating within the confines of inherited dogma.

To their credit the church often employed rigidly flawless logic and engaged in deep philosophical and theological debates on a wide range of topics.  Arguments on every nuanced point raged for decades and extraordinary leaps may have been achieved if their focus was directed toward the physical rather, than the metaphysical.  Unfortunately, the foundation of their philosophical endeavours was undermined by empirically flawed assumptions.  Few cases highlight this better than the case of the “dog heads”.

“Dog heads” were reported to have the body of a man and the head of a dog.  They lived in villages beyond the hills, tilled the fields, kept their houses tidy, spoke to each other in yaps and barks, and even kept pets of their own.  These creatures were a fascinating puzzle to theologians, but not because of their strange appearance or human like behaviour.  The burning question was whether these creatures had human souls and whether they should receive the message of salvation.  That is, when a priest encounters a dog head, should they preach to them?

Animals such as dogs were not considered to have souls, yet humanity (being created in God’s image) required salvation to avoid the torments of Hell.  But what do you do with a creature which is half animal and half human?  Some argued dog heads were not fully human thus cannot have human souls.  Others maintained human souls inhabited the dog head’s corporal being, thus they were deserving of salvation.  One notable theologian argued dog heads must have a human soul or they would not maintain ordered societies, farm the land, or loving keep their pets – such morality is clearly derived from the divine.  No one stopped to ask if these creatures actually existed – mere reports of sightings were considered sufficient.

When Marco Polo finally set out on his epic adventure to the East, one of his goals was to find the dog heads, study them, and record what he found.  This may provide the valuable evidence required on what a priest should do when he encounters one.  But wherever he went the dog heads were reported to be just over the next hill, or in a neighbouring land.  On many occasions Marco was surprised to hear people reply:

“I thought the dog heads lived in your country!”

As Marco pushed East the boundaries of the dog heads territory was pushed back until finally there was nowhere left for them to hide.  Clearly, the dog heads did not seem to exist.  All the deep theological debates, philosophical ponderings, and arguments within the church were in vain.  There was no empirical evidence the dog heads actually existed.  They may have well been arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Similarly, without empirical evidence, all the theological arguments for the existence of god are like arguing over what to do with the dog heads.  Until evidence of souls, afterlives, or gods is presented there is little point in debating the finer details of god’s character, the method of creation, apparent design, or the criteria for entry into Heaven.

I flagged this video a few days ago, but only watched it this evening. It’s is not often we see ex-muslims speaking out against the “religion of peace”. What these people have done is extraordinary and brave given the fundamentalists attraction to extreme violence.

Matt Dillhunty (president of the Atheist Community of Austin, co-host of “Non-Prophets Radio“, and “The Atheist Experience”) recently debated Father Hans Jacobse (an Antiochian Orthodox Priest) at The University of Maryland on 16th November.  Full video of the event can be found here (although only 6 of the 9 videos have been posted online as this article is published).

As I watched this highly anticipated debate numerous counter points came to mind, and while I am sure Matt would have done a fine job of addressing them all given sufficient time, and the comment section of the Atheist Experience web site is running amok, I thought it might be beneficial to raise them here.

I will not be addressing Matt’s points because, well, I have nothing to add to them, nor can I find any items of disagreement.  I suppose that means he “must be right” (to get that joke, you might have to listen to our interview with Matt earlier this year).

So on to Father Hans Jacobse’s commentary.  What follows are direct quotes made by Father Jacobse during the debate.  I hope they are accurate and maintain the context well enough to avoid being accused of straw mans, misquoting, and taken things “out of context” – but I suspect these thing will happen anyway.

The following quotes all come from the following video:

1:00 “Atheism properly understood allows for no objective existence of anything non material – not made from matter. Philosophical materialism is the philosophical ground of atheism.” – Father Hans Jacobse

So right out of the blocks Hans is operating under a false definition of atheism.  Atheism is the skeptical response to theistic propositions – we do not accept the claims a god exists due to insufficient or inadequate evidence.  This does not exclude the possibility of ethereal realms beyond the physical, although evidence for these also seem to be lacking.  All atheists I have ever spoken to are methodological (not philosophical) materialism.

1:58 “I would argue as an historian that atheism cannot exist except in a Christian society.” – Father Hans Jacobse

This statement is in stark contrast to clear instructions within the Bible, the history of the Christian Church, and the mere fact people all across the globe reject the notions of gods.  I guess Christians ignore passages like this:

“If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him.  Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you.  You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery.  And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst.” - (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

However, historically the Catholic Church (the only Christian faith worth speaking of for centuries) presided over inquisition to uncover and punish heretics.  By coincidence, Jerry Coyne (author of the fabulous book “Why Evolution is True”) posted a few of the torture devices used during the Inquisition in Cartagena, which lasted just over 200 years.

It seems for the best part of 2,000 years Christianity suppressed disbelief through a system of ruthless torture and fear.

2:14 “Does atheism acknowledge the independent existence of the transcendent?” – Father Hans Jacobse

Atheism itself says nothing about the transcendent.  In fact, it says nothing about anything other than “I do not believe your god claims are valid.”  If you want to convince skeptical people of your claims, then the burden of proof is yours to meet.  In the 200 decades since Jesus walked the Earth our religious organisations have routinely failed to meet this challenge.

5:00 “From the view that one holds to transcendent causes then, which would be me, and in my case the God of Abraham within he framework of Orthodox Christianity, that a definition of reality cannot be reduced to matter alone.  That matter is not the source of what defines and shapes our ideas of meaning, aesthetics, justice, and so forth.” – Father Hans Jacobse

Hans is making an interesting claim here, but it’s pointless without evidence to back it up.  I assume he might consider meaning, aesthetics, and justice evidence of the transcendent without realising the circular logic in which he finds himself.  Nevertheless, I believe we can build systems of meaning, aesthetics, justice without appealing to the transcendent.  All that is required are conscious beings capable of making value judgements – and don’t forget, there seems to be no reason to suggest consciousness is not simply an emergent property of the brain.

5:53 “They [atheists] get offended when I state that their moral views are derived from the categories and grammar of the Christian moral tradition.  And necessarily so because Christianity has shaped what we know of Western culture.” – Father Hans Jacobse

I will ignore the killing of heretics, atheists, non-believers, witches, and other enemies of the Church to concentrate of slavery for a moment.  The Bible is clear on the issue of slavery.  It informs you how much you should pay for them, how to properly beat them and what to do should they die from said beatings, how to pass them on to descendants, etc.  These passages were used to support the vile trade in human ownership and suffering, even as Martin Luther King delivered his iconic speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in 1963.  Sure King used Biblical passages to support his anti-slavery stance, but what good is the “good book” if it can be used to support both sides?  It seems moral views on slavery (and many other issues) are brought to the book, rather than arise out of it.

6:12 “If an atheist says (for example) that ‘killing is wrong’ that he is not drawing from the first principles of his philosophy – he is borrowing from the precepts first delivered in the texts of Christian scripture.” – Father Hans Jacobse

Like this one?

“But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.” Jesus, Luke 19:27

Moving on…

6:20 “The narrative of Moses descending from the Mount, which indicates to us that precept, although it is given to us through the mouth of Moses … has a source and origin in the God of Moses. Which is to say it has a transcendent source of origin, something beyond molecules that made of Moses, or even the molecules of the texts that gives us the story.”  – Father Hans Jacobse

I am having trouble distilling Father Jacobse’s logic here.  I am unable to discern a method to tell “transcendently inspired” speech from the mouths of individuals from simply the minds of individuals.  How could we possibly separate these two groups apart?

Moreover, texts are made of matter and words are produced by physical voice boxes vibrating physical molecules in the air, which wind up vibrating the surface of the receivers ear drum to be converted into bio-electric nerve signals to be interpreted by the matrix of neurones within the brain.  Where is the transcendent in this equation?

6:58 “One could also argue that non-Christian cultures also recognised that killing was wrong, and I would agree with this point.  There is no disputing that, but there is not that Christianity has an exclusive claim on moral truths (they don’t), but that other religions still recognise what I consider an elementary fact of the universe – man cannot live by bread alone, which is to say that man is more than the molecules which shape his body.” – Father Hans Jacobse

This is simply a bald faced assertion for which the good Father has provided no evidence whatsoever.  As Christopher Hitchens said in his great book “God is NOT Great”:

“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” – Christopher Hitchens

Back to Father Hans Jacobse:

7:50 “I believe that truth is a category of existence – a transcendent category of existence.  That is to say that truth exists independent of any comprehension that I may have of it.” – Father Hans Jacobse

Strangely, I find myself ending part one of this dissection kind of agreeing with Father Jacobse.  Truth, if defined as the “true” nature of reality (including any transcendent parts) exists regardless of our awareness, comprehension, or understanding of it.  There are truths regarding reality we have not yet uncovered, and there may well be believes we current hold as true which will ultimately resolve to the utterly false.  The key point is how we should go about discerning what this truth really is.

On one hand we have empirical study, observation, logic, deduction, correlation, causation, and the verification of predictive models.  On the other we have the transcendent word revealed.  I know which one I am backing.

Continue to part 2.

In the book “God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?” by John Lennox he puts forward the example of Aunt Matilda’s cake to illustrate the limited nature of science.

The scenario has Aunt Matilda baking a cake and number of scientists are asked to describe it. A nutritionists might tell us about the carbohydrates, fats, sugars, proteins, vitamins, and minerals the cake contains. A chemist might be able to tell us about the chemical structures are reactions taking place as the cake is cooked. A physicist could tell us about the atomic bonds between the molecules of the cake. Yet to spite all their knowledge about the cake’s composition and structure, none of them are able to say why the cake was baked. To complete the scene Aunt Matilda only smiles when asked, never revealing her secret.

The analogy to the universe is clear. While we can investigate the reality of galaxies in which we find ourselves, only the creator is able to reveal why he created it in the first place. For all the wisdom of science there are some questions which simply cannot be answered. These reside in another realm – a non-overlapping magisteria.

There are a number of problems I see with this analogy:

1) The entire scenario simply assumes a creator.

A universe is a very different thing to a cake. A cake is composed of pre-existing matter arranged in a certain configuration which he label “cake”. As far as we can tell, a universe comes from nothing and nowhere. These are very different propositions and to equate one with the other is a category error.

In order to validly pose the question “why did the creator make us” a creator must first be demonstrated. We can easily confirm Aunt Matilda bakes cakes – just witness the act in motion. How can we confirm the creation of universes? Where is God’s universe factory?

2) We do not need to ask Aunt Matilda to deduce the reason she baked the cake.

While Aunt Matilda may be getting senile and difficult in her old age, we are not required to rely on her testimony to determine the purpose of the cake. A good scientist is also good detective. We know cake’s are usually baked for celebrations of some sort – birthdays, anniversaries, and other special events. We can interrogate the birth records of her friends and family and see if any are due shortly. We can read newspaper notices for announcements of births or marriages. We can check if anyone she knows has recently had some good news, or if she has been invited to a party. All of these are reasonable indicators which may give correct answers, but there is no way of being certain of your conclusion. This kind of uncertainty is perfectly normal in scientific circles.

Of course, there is another way we can determine the purpose of the cake – follow it. Stalk Aunt Matilda as she boxes the cake up, bundles it into the car, and delivers it to its destination. If she takes it to her grandson James’s 5th birthday party, we can safely deduce it was the purpose of the cake all along. This is completely within the scope of science and requires no revelation whatsoever.

3) Even if Aunt Matilda does tell us, we have no way of knowing if this was the true reason.

Lastly, Aunt Matilda might breakdown and tell us the why she baked the cake, but this is no guarantee either. She may have made it the cake for some purpose which has since dissipated – a congratulatory gift for someone’s new job which fell through for some reason. She may be a pathological liar and never tell us her true intentions. She might be misinforming us to obfuscate the truth; For example, the cake may be a surprise gift for us. So even if Aunt Matilda does tell us, we still have no way of knowing.

Ultimately, I do not think Aunt Matilda’s cake rises to the occasion.

Professor Donald Arthur Norman is an expert in the field of cognitive science and is widely considered to be the first to advanced human factors to design theory.  He is founder of The Cognitive Science Society and the Nielsen Norman Group, a consulting group on matters of usability which also includes Jakob Nielsen and Bruce Tognazzini – the founder of the Human Interface Group at Apple Computers.

In Donald’s first book “The Psychology of Everyday Things” he outlines a number of design principles which illuminate characteristics of effective human centred design.  Through the application of affordances (the idea you push buttons, pull handles, turn dials, flick switches, etc), constraints (limiting the available options for users), natural mappings (I will speak more on these in a moment), feedback, error tolerance, and social conventions (for example green for “go”) designers can communicate models of how a system operates to the end user.  The idea is to leverage our innate ability to conceptualise our environment in order to understand and predict it.

Norman’s book was a pivotal text in my fundamental thinking regarding design and what constitutes good design from bad.  Consider the following:  Let’s say you have a cook top arranged in a 2×2 grid and the control dials are arranged 4 in a line below.  Which dial operates which hot plate?  Why are there so many possible answers when there is only reality of the situation?

I would routinely turn on the wrong hot plate and wonder why dinner was not cooking.  After reading this book I understood the problem – I had an incorrect model of the cooker in my mind, and the cooktop presented ambiguous information.  Even with careful consideration to the illustrations provided to explain the system, occasionally errors would occur and dinner would be delayed.  A few years ago we had the opportunity to purchase a new cook top and I was able to eliminate approximately 80% of the models available simply by insisting on this one good design principle – natural mapping.

The designer has a mental image of how the system works which they imbed into the object.  The end user interprets the object and derives a mental model of how it may operate using a combination of inherent restrictions, past experiences, social conventions, and logical deduction (among others).

One measure of good design is where the mental models of the system in both designer and user match.  When they do not the designer has not succeeded in their task since the system is projecting the wrong model in the mind of the user.

We have evolved to conceptualise the world around us in this way for good reason.  If we can build accurate mental models of how things work, or predict what another animal might be about to do, then we have better chances of utilising our environment to our advantage, and taking action to pre-emptively avoid harm – such as being eaten by a lion.

In our modern world we have designed, built, and surrounded ourselves with artefacts which serve specific purposes.  Everything around us to purposefully designed to serve particular functions.

Light globes to microwave ovens, video recorders to jet aircraft have all been conceptualised by the collective minds of generations.

In these cases it is valid to deductive conclude these objects were indeed designed.  In every case we are able to see the design process in action. This is an important, critical, and often overlooked fact.

This kind of thinking is so useful and powerful we might not stop to think it could and go astray, but it can – badly.  As I explained earlier, we can conclude incorrect mental models of the world around us, which results in a misunderstanding of how a system is actually works (or how it should be used in the case of truly designed objects).  One of the most powerful tricks of the scientific method is to strip away our preconceptions and continually test proposed models against reality.  Models which are verified through empirical observation are considered provisionally true and accurate.  I say “provisionally” because a model should always be open to alterations should evidence to the contrary arise.  Those which fail crucial tests are either altered to fit the newly discovered data or discarded completely.  Science is intellectually honest, open minded, and self correcting.

However, there is a error here we must be cautious to avoid.

It is tempting to conclude that because some things (indeed many things in modern western societies)are intentionally designed means ALL things are.  This is an error since we can only deductively conclude design if we can observe the design process in action.  The remaining systems may or may not be designed – it is simply unknown at this point.  Those who claim the natural world itself is designed should provide evidence of the design process.

Intelligent Design advocates, creationists, and “cdesign proponentsists” have not meet the burden of proof since they have only forwarded an argument from analogy.  Just because something looks designed does not mean it is.  It is also an argument from ignorance (because they have cannot think of a naturalistic methodology), and has the added problem of inductive reasoning.

Those poor creationists still have all their work ahead of them.

According to legend, God came down to the mountain and etched 10 rules of living into the rock for the people of Israel.  As we know, up until then the Israeli people were murdering each other, stealing stuff, working all the time, and coveting all over the place.  The Israelites knew God was serious after he killed all those people for building and worshipping that giant ass while he was busy with cavorting with Moses, who accidentally broke the stone tablets in the process (don’t worry, god faxed him another copy later).

“But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it.” – Exodus 20:10-11

Now not working 1 day in 7 can really put a dent in your productivity.  The markets close, the lawns remain uncut, the goats udder’s bloat, and you can’t even turn on a light switch to read a book.  The Sabbath sucks, but what are you going to do – it’s God’s law.

Luckily, the Jews somehow know the bylaws of God’s commandments and have devised ways to exploit various loop holes.  For example, while God considers it work to carry car keys, tissues, or push a babies pram outside your home, so what do you do if you want to nip down to the corner shop for a Chiko Roll?

Those ingenious Jews figured they could all own the village for the Sabbath, therefore go wherever they wanted – at least within the village walls.  This way, since they aren’t crossing legal boundaries they would not be breaking God’s cosmic real estate laws, or divine commandments.  On Sunday (yeah, different Sabbath people) everything can return to legal normality with each participant owning their own property again.  It’s brilliant I tell you!

Moreover, the walls delimiting the village do not need to be actual walls – God accepts symbolic walls, doors, and windows as well.  So the Israeli people to not have to go to the bother of actually building real walls with opening doors and sliding windows – they can just string up a few wires around the common property with symbolic doors, then sit back, enjoy a brew, and admire their work.  And so the Eruv was born.

Why am I telling you all of this wondrous information?  Well, the Orthodox Jewish community in St Ives want to suspend overhead wires on 27 poles to form an Eruv in Northern Sydney – complete with make believe doors and pretend windows no doubt.

Apparently the community members are coveting the freedoms the rest of us enjoy and wish to exist their homes whenever they damn like.  Now I would not stand in anyone’s bizarrely superstitious way, but the residents are concerned about the landscaping, environmental, and visual impacts these wires will have.  Fair enough.

Personally I am more worried about the mental stability of individuals who think the creator of the universe is so easily fooled by simple legal manoeuvres and almost non-existent symbolic walls.  Such shoddy workmanship on his 10 most precious commandments leaves me seriously wondering about the intricate and complicated mathematics used to run the universe.

Members of the Jewish community were approached for comment, but were unavailable.  It’s the Sabbath.

Like all other discourse in society, religious conversations hinge on the definitions of specific words.  To facilitate meaningful discussion it is important that everyone involved agrees on the specific interpretations of the words and phrases used so that the all parties have a clear understanding of the message being conveyed.  Many hours have been wasted arguing positions without clearly understanding the underlying definitions, therefore misinterpreting the messages conveyed.

For example, the word “atheist” has specific meaning to the individuals using it.  Although, it may not be immediately apparent different definitions might be in play until well into the debate.  Some usages of the word immediately give away meanings in theological discussions.  For example:

• Atheism has no solid philosophical basis.
• Atheism has no basis for morality.
• Atheism has no explanation for the origins of the universe.
• The horrors of Hitler, Pol Pot, and Stalin were due to atheism.
• Atheism is a religion.

These examples (and many more) display a profound ignorance not only the word “atheism” but what it is or is not, as the case may be.

The term “atheism” originates from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning “without gods”.  Originally it was applied negatively to those who rejected the gods worshiped by the community at large.  As such, Christians were originally called “atheists” since they did not believe in the many Greek gods on offer.  Instead they asserted their three-in-one deity as the … ummmm … one true god.

The New Testament refers to “atheists”, but only once.  Papyrus 46 (one of the earliest New Testament manuscripts in existence) mentions atheists in Epistle to the Ephesians (2:12).  It is usually translated into English as “[those who are] without God”.  It seems there has always been educated people who reject the bizarre claims of the godly.  So much for “the new atheists”.

“Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called ‘uncircumcised’ by those who call themselves ‘the circumcision’ (that done in the body by the hands of men) — remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.” – Ephesians 2:11

Early usages of the word suggest it’s meaning to be “godless”, “ungodly”, or “impious”.  With this definition and the historical usage in mind it is easy to understand the connotations atheism carries today among those unfamiliar with what atheism truly is, or more accurately, is not.

By the 5th Century atheism began to mean “severing relations with god” or “denying the gods”.  Many still operate under this definition today under the misapprehension that any usage of the word “god” automatically refers to the an extant entity – the god they happen to believe in.  Of course, this is a ludicrous assertion as one must also accept the existence of (operating under the exactly same logic) leprechauns, unicorns, gremlins, ghouls, kraken, and Cthulhu.  Why would these words exist unless otherwise?  It is interesting to note that records of debates between (say) Christians and Hellenists would often use the word “atheist” when referring to the opposing side.  These are clearly not atheists as we understand them today.

The term English word “atheist” comes from the French “athéisme”, which appeared around 1571.  Related words emerged shortly afterwards; deist in 1621, theist in 1662, theism in 1678, and deism in 1682 – although the definitions of these words not fixed in those early days.

Karen Armstrong, a former Catholic Nun and author of many comparative religious works, writes:

“During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the word ‘atheist’ was still reserved exclusively for polemic … The term ‘atheist’ was an insult. Nobody would have dreamed of calling himself an atheist.”

Atheism was first used to specifically denoting disbelief in the monotheistic Abrahamic god in the late 18th-century.  In the 20th century, globalisation contributed to the expansion of the term to refer to disbelief in all deities. In the Western atheism is still simply “disbelief in God” (a term I am personally uncomfortable with for reasons I will explore shortly).

Even today there is disagreement on how exactly to define atheism.  The areas of debate seem to centre around which supernatural entities it applies to.  Is atheism an assertion in it own right? Does it require a conscious and explicit rejection?  Categories have been proposed to deal with these difficulties, but I believe them to be mostly confusing and largely unnecessary.

All people who have never heard of a god are implicitly atheist.  This includes babies, societies without supernatural beliefs, or individuals incapable of forming a coherent thought.  In opposition to implicit atheism and theistic innatism (the idea that all people believe in God from birth); is explicit atheism.  Those who have considered the god hypothesis and rejected it, for whatever reason.  Many who subscribe to theistic innatism consider atheists are simply in denial.  How many times have you heard the phrase “everyone believes in god, even if they don’t know it”?

“The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist.” – George H. Smith

Philosophers such as Antony Flew have propose further categories of atheism – positive and negative atheism for example, though not in the sense that positive is good and negative is bad.  Positive atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist, while negative atheism includes all other non-theistic positions.  I prefer the modifiers strong and weak, leaving positive atheism for honest, morally upright, progressive, enthusiastic disbelievers in gods.

Strong atheists either assert there is no god, or (less forcefully) claim the statement “there is at least one god” is false.  While this is certainly a stronger claim, I believe it is a weaker position.  Since this a claim to knowledge it attracts the burden of proof, and proving the non-existence of anything has always been tricky.

Practical atheists live as if gods do not exist, or are not important considerations - apatheists.  Practical atheism can take many forms, but usually the existence of gods is not explicitly denied. Many people claiming to believe in a god (ticking the Christian box on a census form for example) do not give any practical consideration to their proclaimed faith in everyday life, thus might be considered practical atheists.  On the other hand, theoretical atheists posit arguments against the existence of gods, usually in response to theistic claims.

You might notice that none of these definitions address knowledge, but argue about the belief.  This is because atheism deals with belief, not knowledge.  There is no requirement to extend any claims to knowledge when dealing with atheism – theists are making the claims, let them demonstrate them as true.  In this light one can concurrently claim to be agnostic (not claiming knowledge either way) and atheist (I do not believe).  Extreme philosophical skepticism does not allow knowledge to truly …. well ….. be known, but that does not prevent a position of belief to be stated.  Nor is it accurate to conclude that because we cannot claim absolute knowledge that all beliefs are equally valid.  Such positions seem indefensible.

“Atheism is the rejection of theistic claims due to the lack of sufficient supporting evidence.”

In my mind atheism is not the claim there is no god, or the disbelief in god (which assumes there is a god to disbelieve in), or a set of tenants, rituals, or beliefs.  Atheism is the rejection of theistic claims due to the lack of sufficient supporting evidence.  Atheism is the result of skeptical inquiry into god hypothesis. Atheism is a conclusion. A rejection. A lack of a belief.  It’s certainly not a religion, but the antithesis of such.

So what am I?  I am a explicit, positive, weak, agnostic, practical, and theoretical atheist.

What are you?

This morning during a radio interview on 774 ABC Melbourne, the new Prime Minister of Australia Julia Gillard was asked point blank:

“Do you believe in God?”

Her reply:

“No I don’t, John”

Julia went on to say she was raised in a Baptist household and attended church regularly, but decided to “pursue a different path in her adult life“. The Prime Minister believes people can be decent, moral, upstanding citizens without pretending to believe in a deity to attract the religious voters.  What is more important to her is the welfare of the Australian people – regardless of their religious convictions.

It is hugely refreshing to hear a politician talk so openly and honestly about their faith, or lack thereof.  I am unaware of any other current major political leader who has openly admitted their disbelief (according to the comments, there are plenty).  Julia’s credibility just jumped a few notches in my books.

Update 1: Thank you to PZ Myers for linking this short article on his fantastic blog.  Welcome all pharyngulites.

Update 2: Jason Ball (and others) from The Young Australian Skeptics were interviewed on Australia’s TripleJ radio station on this issue.

MEDIA RELEASE
Senate Inquiry: Atheist Foundation President calls for accountability measures for religious charities.

Today, David Nicholls, President of the Atheist Foundation of Australia gave evidence in support of tax breaks to charitable organisations operating within Australia, while calling for enhanced accountability.

“The AFA is strongly in favour of granting tax concessions to genuine charities that give assistance to combating poverty, illness and the problems of our aged citizens,” he said.

While a charity is a non-profit-making organisation, most organised religions today own corporations with vast reserves, and holdings in equities ranging from stock market shares to real estate and manufacturing with profits in the billions.

Unfortunately, it is common practise that only small amounts of these profits are ploughed back into charitable works, while the majority of tax-free revenue is used to increase assets, and simultaneously, religious influence.

At the hearing David Nicholls stated “The facts are damning. The estimated untaxed income of religions in 2009 was about 30 billion dollars. Australian taxpayers have to make up that shortfall.”

“The AFA demands that only the charitable arms of religions receive tax relief, but only if, like all secular charities, their books are open to inspection and auditing; they do not restrict their charity to their own adherents; and they abide by every provision of the United Nations Charter of Human Rights,” he said.

It is the opinion of the Atheist Foundation of Australia that blanket support of religions through tax breaks should cease, and the charitable arms of religions should only receive taxation concessions if they are accountable to the Australian public.

“The Atheist Foundation of Australia, along with all Australian taxpayers eagerly await the Government’s response to this important Inquiry.” Mr Nicholls said.

Contact:

David Nicholls
President
Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc
Private Mail Bag 6
MAITLAND SA 5573
Ph: (08) 8835 2269

Email: info@atheistfoundation.org.au
Web: http://atheistfoundation.org.au
Forum: http://atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/
Convention: http://www.atheistconvention.org.au

There is nothing here I do not agree with.

Back in episode 2.1 I spoke about Andrew Finden’s (Findo) 12 facts of Jesus and largely dismissed them out of hand.  After Andrew made a few comments on this web site (see here, here, here, and here) we reignited our conversation.  After a short salvos each way, we agreed that I should look at “the 12 factual claims historian agree upon” before proceeding onto any implications resulting.  So let’s have a look at these 12 facts:

1) Jesus died due to crucifixion

Really?  The Romans were apparently meticulous record keepers.  Surely one of them would have written down the names of those executed and Jesus would appear on a list dated to around 36 AD?  Nope, nothing.  Also keep these curious facts in mind:

1. Jesus is reported to have only written a few things down, then immediately erased them leaving no trace.
2. There are no depictions of Jesus from the times he was reported to have lived.  We have no idea what he looked like.
3. Jesus left no physical trace for any supposed miracle.  Walking on water, feeding people, and healing disease do not leave long lasting evidence.
4. The reported pieces of the cross would probably fill an ark.
5. The Shroud of Turin is a proven fraud.  It’s even been accurately copied.
6. All we have are reports from self confessed eye witnesses (see this post), and
7. The documents we have date to decades after the supposed events.

This is shaky data indeed. It’s like Jesus never really existed at all.

2) …was buried afterwards

Not an amazing claim. I would expect people have been burying the dead for a long time.  They stink up the place.

3) Jesus’ death caused the disciples to experience despair and lose hope, believing that their master was dead.

Follows.  No big deal there.  Perfectly believable.

4) The tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered to be empty just a few days later.

This of course assumes there was a guy called “Jesus” in the first place, and he was buried honourably to spite the extreme humiliation he experienced leading up to his death.  While this point does not mention it directly, it does elude to the central miraculous claim of Christianity – Jesus rose.  Assuming there was a Jesus for the sake of argument, there are still many more plausible explanations for empty tombs without resorting to the supernatural.

5) The disciples had real experiences which they thought were literal appearances of the risen Jesus.

I do not doubt that people have “experiences” which they can believe to be many things.  People report seeing Elvis is Michael Jackson, or describe in great detail being abducted by aliens and experimented on, often sexually.  Many of these people are totally convinced their experiences are real, does this make them so?

6) The disciples were transformed from timid and troubled doubters afraid to identify themselves with Jesus to bold preachers of his death and resurrection who were more than willing to die for their faith in him.

Ahh, the old “people wouldn’t die for a lie” line.  Problem is – they do.  It is sufficient for people to really believe their claims in order to perform extraordinary acts based upon those beliefs.  For example, the Heaven’s Gate Cult committed suicide to hitch a ride on an alien space craft hidden in the tail of Haley’s comet.  Crazy, to be sure.  Are we to believe that based solely on this fact that their beliefs were somehow true?

7) This message was the center of preaching in the earliest church.

And?  Many religions were started by small groups of people making extraordinary claims.  This does not make any of them true, but they can all be wrong.

8) Was especially proclaimed in Jerusalem, the same city where Jesus had recently died and had been buried.

Errr – where is the surprise?

9) As a direct result of this preaching, the church was born.

This is a restating of “facts” 7 and 8.

10) Featuring Sunday as the special day of worship.

Completely non spectacular.  It’s also contested within the Christian community.  Waving your hands and saying Jesus or the disciples abandoned the existing Sabbath to establish their own does not make it fact.  It hardly makes any sense.

(11) James, a brother of Jesus who had been a skeptic, was converted when he believed that he saw the resurrected Jesus.

There once was a skeptic, just like you.  He saw the risen Jesus and instantly converted to the one true religion.  You should too.  Blergh.

11) A few years later, Paul was also converted to the Christian faith by an experience which he, likewise, thought was an appearance of the risen Jesus.

According to the primary sources of this “fact”, Paul never met Jesus nor was a follower his prior to this reported experience.  While books could, and have, been written about Paul, all I need demonstrate here is that revelations are necessarily  first person.  Paul says he had an experience.  He says is was Jesus.  He says.

Ultimately, I am not that impressed with these “factual” claims, but I will persist with the exercise.  There are a number of documents Findo has referred me towards which (I believe) make the historical case behind these facts undeniable.  I will post my thoughts on these soon.

For the first time in Australian legal history, the Parliament’s Senate Economics Committee is investigating tax law amendments that might (if enacted) close a loophole exploited by religious organisations.

Currently, Australian Tax Office (ATO) automatically grants tax free status to organisations that make “supernatural claims”.  This means Catholics, Hindus, Muslims, Scientologists, Jews, Zoroastrians, and some Buddhists all do not have to pay tax, but the Raelians do (they believe in little green space men, who are not supernatural by definition).

Historically, religious organisations may have provided public benefit – helping the poor, clothing the homeless, providing shelter to the destitute, and building houses for those devastated by God’s natural disasters among other things.  However, these organisations also exist to promote their theology and spread the message of salvation, or whatever voodoo mojo they happen to believe.  This component of religious behaviour is arguably not in the public interest – especially in a country which is striving for multiculturalism and cohesive inclusion.

Today the President of the Atheist Foundation of Australia (David Nicholls) issued a press release regarding their submission to the Senate Economics Committee:

For the first time in the history of Australian politics a representative of a national atheist organisation has been asked to appear before a Senate Inquiry.  This is a significant event for the Atheist Foundation of Australia and all freethinkers.

David Nicholls (President of the AFA) will participate in a teleconference on Monday 28th June 3:30 PM – 4:15 PM (EST).  He will be commenting on the AFA Submission (No. 25), “Parliament of Australia: Senate: Committees: Economics: Inquiry into Tax Laws Amendment (Public Benefit Test) Bill 2010.”  The Submission can be viewed here.

The conference will be broadcast live on the 28th June.

Given the vast number of religious based submissions it is unclear how loudly our rational and secular voice will be heard, but it is important for all Australians that any tax breaks given benefit everyone, and are not limited to magical thinking sub sets.

Religious organisations wishing to continue providing charitable services are quite free to do so under the same rules, regulations, and scrutiny secular charities have endured for decades.  Open financial books, regular audits, and demonstrating your services are beneficial to society are all required by all organisations not trying to please space ghosts.  In a modern society, why are beliefs in spirits, ghosts, afterlives, or telepathic comic deities relevant to you tax status?

When have they ever been?

Hat tip: Seantheblogonaut

This week the talk to the incredible awesomeness that is AronRa, speak about the “Delete your Facebook Day”, Findo’s 12 irrefutable “facts” which demonstrate Jesus was god, and a whole lot more.

One warning though: This episode is a long one (just over 2 hours), so make sure you get some munchies and visit the toilet before you start.  Enjoy!

Note: We did have a large number of technical issues during the interview with Aron, namely a horrible microphone interference which we could not isolate.  It appears a handful of times during the interview, for which I apologise.

References

• AronRa recorded some of the time we spent on BlogTV.
• Findo’s 12 hysterical historical “facts”
• Holy tap heal woman
• Holy water sprinkled on atheist teacher
• Kenyan man sacrifices his son to god

I have been continually engaged in religious conversations for 4 years now.  In that time I had always considered the theistic position frustratingly and stupidly annoying.  Today I learnt a very important lesson – it’s not theists, religion, pseudoscience, or belief in hocus pocus voodoo that really gets my goat, it’s people who are unable to think clearly, logically, and reasonably.  People who act dogmatically and hypocritically and who lack the ability to absorb new information – not matter what they end up believing.  Enter Zach”s Mind.

Over the past few days I have been engaged in an interesting debate with a Twitter user by the name of Zachsmind, who asserts there IS no god - an accusation to which I responded to by pointing out that there is no way he could know that for certain, thereby remaining ever so slightly and technically agnostic.

The error Zach is making is taking the entirety of his experiences, which do not indicate the presence of any divine entity (indeed, no one I have ever meet has any verifiable evidence of a god), and extrapolating it to the entire universe.  By stating that not only the things he knows do not qualify as a “god”, but that nothing in the universe could ever qualify is a magnificent error.  The non existence of a god is a claim he cannot make for he does not know what the remainder of the universe contains.  You cannot prove a negative and Zach is desperately trying.  No matter what our experiences of the universe may be, we can only claim the nonexistence of an entity in two scenarios:

1) The definition of the entity (“god”) is logically contradictory and therefore cannot exist (assuming reality itself is not contradictory and the axioms of logic are in fact true), or

2) We have experienced every aspect of reality and can find no entity which matches the definition of a “god”.  This assumes omniscience, which I doubt Zach has.

On top of this, Zach makes the extraordinary leap that since I do not claim full and total knowledge of reality that, in fact, gives theists a solid platform on which to base their beliefs.  This is completely irrational since believing an entity exists when 99.99999999% of the evidence does not support the claim is ridiculous.  Rather than basing a belief on the remaining microscopic fraction of possibility, I would have thought it’s more rational to abandon it altogether.

In addition, because I am intellectually honest and allow for the possibility of a god (even though it is vanishingly small) I am in fact defending the theistic positions.  I am an atheist who somehow secretly believes there is a god, but won’t admit it.  I am a mole.  A round square, an equality defending racist, and practicing pro-life abortionist.  This is, of course, a straw man of the highest order.

Unfortunately, the conversation was abruptly terminated when I called Zachsmind a “retard” because he projected his poor definitions and delusion onto me during one of his many straw man rants.  I can only assume that Zach’s disembodied mind was jettisoned from its host in an act of self preservation.  I hope you find your way back to reality, Zach.  I really do.

Some people believe that rearranging furniture in your house changes the flow of energy in your life, so the correct arrangement and orientation of household items is crucial.  The correct arrangement can lead to success, health and wealth. So don’t sleep with you feet facing the door, or something.

Some people believe aliens travel for billions of light years to land next to hopeless and desperate individuals to insert probes in their anus.  I am not sure about you, but the idea of travelling across the galaxies to stare at someone’s ass is kind of odd, but then again I am not an alien.

There are others who believe the creator of the universe messed things up so badly when he gave us “free will” that he had to take human form to kill himself to make everything right again. Even then it doesn’t work unless you believe the story.  Is that the best solution God can come up with? Really?

I really don’t really care about what people believe. I don’t. If you want to live your life according to ancient superstitions, or pseudo scientific “health” remedies, or you figure the Chinese had it worked out thousands of years ago yet our modern medical profession just doesn’t get it – knock yourself out. I really don’t care.

However, if you think you have the right to enforce those beliefs on others we have a problem. When you force your beliefs on children who trust you to look after and protect them, then I sense they are being indoctrinated and told what to think, not how to think.

When you pass judgement on others for their behaviours that goes against the your silly superstitions, then I must wonder what business it is of yours.  Others don’t believe in your superstitions, so why should they live by them?

When you try to enshrine your idiotic notions of souls, demons, sin, and judgemental telepathic zombies, then we reach the rarified atmosphere of lunacy.

Want to belief these things? Great!  I won’t stop you.

If you really are concerned with protecting potential human life, then start worrying about the thousands of potential people thrown in the trash during routine In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF) procedures.

If you want to prevent human suffering, then start worrying about burn victims, heart patients, stoke and cancer patients, and alzheimer’s suffers who are among the millions of real, fully grown individuals who could benefit from stem cell research.

You have it ass backwards when you worry about potential people when real people are dying painfully and horribly.

You want to tell me there is no harm in crystal healing, taro cards, homeopathy, aroma therapy, and religion? Tell that to the never ending victims of these practices seen in the news everyday.

In the news over the past few weeks I have seen babies dying form eczema, teenagers dying from diabetes, toddlers starved to death for not saying “Amen” after prayers.  The last lot still expect the boy’s body to be resurrected a year after they stuffed him in a suitcase and put him in the garage.

Yesterday a woman cut the head off her own baby because “a demon told here to”.  I am not blaming this behaviour solely on religion – this woman is clearly and seriously mentally ill.  She needs real help, but I fear there are churches who would have given her a pointless and often violent exorcism to “cure her”. This incredibly stupid idea was held by the authors of the Bible some 2,000 years ago.

Demons caused illness and madness and bizarre religious ceremonies using important sounding dead languages, magic talismans, and a lot of shouting will drive these spirits from the body.  We have made great strides in our understanding of human biology, germ theory, bio-chemistry, and evolution in the past 2,000 years.   People have died during exorcisms and they certainly don’t cure homosexuals, and they sure as shit won’t cure illness or insanity because the act itself is totally insane!

You want some special privileges for you stupid superstitions? Well, you ain’t gonna get it from me or a growing number of people who are sick of cowing to your dumb ideas. You may can laugh at Catholics, Scientologists, Hindus, Raeliens, crystal healers, Feng Shui practitioners, palmistry experts, reflexologists, moon landing and holocaust deniers – and you would be right to do so.

Similarly, I reserve the right to laugh at your stupid ideas. Hell, I might even try to explain to your dumb ass why I think they are stupid idea, but I don’t expect you’ll listen. You didn’t get into the mess you’re in by thinking clearly, now did you?

You really want me to adopt your idea so you don’t feel lonely in your beliefs?  Show me some verifiable evidence that what you claim is actually true.  Show me physical evidence the Jesus actually walked the Earth, was crucified and flew off into Heaven (no, an empty tomb won’t do it).  Show me that crystal healing actually works, and I will ditch the medicines in my cupboard and buy a bunch of sparkly rocks.  Show me an alien space craft, not a fuzzy saucer shaped thing in the sky taken by some whacko in the desert and I might lend more credence to the idea.

If your beliefs are true, then these things should not be hard to produce.  If you can’t, then shut up, go back to our corner, and stop trying to make yourself feel better by dragging others into your delusions.