Insurance mandate for contraceptives sparks debate

I published a new article on Examiner.com titled "Insurance mandate for contraceptives sparks debate." View this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for updates via e-mail.

9/11 Truthers and Creationists are Strange Bedfellows

In a previous post, I noted the various failures of the '9/11 Truth Movement' focusing on commentary from the book How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age by Theodore Shick and Lewis Vaughn in addition to an article from a demolition expert who counters the claims made by '9/11 truthers.' While I touched on various logical fallacies and critical thinking errors, I did not focus on the specific strategies of the '9/11 Truth Movement' nor did I notice that 'truthers' are very similar to creationists. In this post, I will argue that the fallacies of the '9/11 truther movement' are very similar to creationists by point out very specific examples drawn from a local blogger known as "Big Dan" of "Big Dan's Big Blog" in addition to other websites that include 9/11 conspiracy theories and denial of evolution.

Here's my argument in a simple deductive form because many have missed the point.

Premise one: One is unjustified in believing a conclusion if the methodology used to arrive at such a conclusion is deeply flawed.
Premise two: The methodology creationists use is deeply flawed.
Premise three: The methodology '9/11 truthers' use is similar to that of creationists.
Conslusion: One is unjustified in believing the conclusion of '9/11 truthers.'

One of the biggest strategies of both creationists and '9/11 truthers' is what I will call the 'house of cards strategy.' '9/11 truthers' and creationists envision accepted accounts of how the world is and what has happened in the past as a flimsy house of cards; if one part of the house is 'pulled out,' they believe that the accepted account completely fails and, of course, their version automatically wins out. This is a classic example of a false dichotomy in which two options are posed and if one is problematic, the flawed logic assumes, the other option automatically wins. As far as evolution and the accepted version of the narrative and happenings surrounding 9/11, it will be the case that there will be some errors in what was initially posited as truth - and this is inevitable. The errors, though, do not entail that the entire theory falls apart.


'9/11 truthers' and creationists love to cherry pick some accounts instead of looking at the whole picture. Creationists, for example, will point to Piltdown Man or Haeckel's Embyros (without, of course, looking for what the relevant experts have to say about these or performing a rudimentary Google search) and believe that this is enough reason to discount evolution.


'9/11 truthers' will say things like "The hijackers' names were not on the flight manifests" and conclude, of course, that "this is evidence of a lie." The earliest released information was, in fact, not manifests, but rather lists of the victims. The manifests were later released, but the '9/11 truthers' will not acknowledge that...and if they do, they offer ad hoc explanations to explain away the evidence which leads me into the next point...


Creationists and '9/11 Truthers,' when confronted with evidence that would dismiss their arguments, offer unfalsifiable/untestable explanations that are coupled with no evidence or very weak evidence. Creationists may say that fossils are just 'a test of faith.' '9/11 truthers' will say that the evidence is simply part of the conspiracy. In the case of photos of the hijackers, Big Dan notes that "You'd have to contact family members and get them to provide you with photos, right? Unless of course you had the photos in advance [...] There is NO WAY (emphasis his) - they would have withheld the complete list of alleged hijackers [sic] names until such time as they had tracked down every perfectly framed and in-focus head shot of every alleged hijacker." Why should we assume that fossils are a 'test of faith?' How can we possibly demonstrate this? Why assume that the evidence is part of the conspiracy?


Creationists and '9/11 truthers' both make inappropriate appeals to authority and assume, just because someone has some sort of title, that everything that person says is true regardless of what other relevant experts have to say who overwhelmingly disagree. Creationists appeal to people like Michael Behe who allege that systems must be intelligently designed because if one part of a system is removed, the system breaks down. '9/11 truthers' appeal to what ought to be called the poster-child of the inappropriate appeal to authority, ae911truth.org, for their information. The 'experts' are often speaking outside of their fields and do not offer peer-reviewed studies to supplement their ideas. The 'Architects and engineers for 9/11 truth' are speaking outside of their field when they are discussing controlled demolition. The controlled demolition experts have not come to a consensus stating that 9/11 was a controlled demolition...and those are the people we should listen to (and not just because they are experts on controlled demolitions, but rather because they are the best to interpret the evidence and present the evidence).


Creationists and '9/11 truthers' commit the informal logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. Both groups frequently use this pattern, championed by Bill O' Reilly, to supplement their arguments: this can't be explained, therefore conspiracy/God. Just because something can't be explained or is not explained does not mean that the creationist or '9/11 truther' is justified in asserting their claims.


The main narrative of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists is that the government and the media lie, have lied, and have participated in deception in the past. They reason, therefore, that since the media and government presented information regarding 9/11, it must be false. Creationists point to examples like Cold Fusion or paint scientists to be 'dogmatists' and therefore reason that scientists can not be trusted. Both camps posit non-sequiturs unjustifiably distrusting the sources of information (that are often quite unrelated or have nothing to do with what they are attacking).


While it is often a great idea to distrust patently unreliable sources of information such as World Net Daily, Conservapedia, or Life Site News, for example, the reasons for doing so should be quite obvious and rejecting such sources is acceptable. In the case of the government and media, it certainly is true that there has been deception and lies, but it simply doesn't follow that everything presented by the government and media (particularly information surrounding 9/11 is false). Similarly, attacking all of science or evolution by attacking certain scientists or trying to paint scientists as dogmatists is unjustified. One of the main goals of science is to reduce bias as much as possible, weed out bad ideas by scrutiny and peer review, and arrive at the best information possible. While some bad studies may be published, this doesn't mean that everything published should be dismissed.


Creationists and '9/11 truthers' commit the false cause fallacy. Creationists claim that evolution is part of a strategy to 'eliminate God' in the schools and 'promote atheism.' They look at the removal of school prayer, for example, and notice the increase of teaching of evolution in schools and reason that there is some sort of 'agenda' going on. '9/11 truthers' allege that 9/11 was some conspiracy by the Bush administration because of the increased militarism of the United States (namely Iraq and Afghanistan).'


Creationists and '9/11 truthers' create the illusion of controversy. Creationists allege that there is a great deal of controversy and that evolution is 'just a weak theory.' 'Organizations' such as the Discovery Institute try to make their side seem professional by asserting that there are 'creation scientists.' No significant amount of scientists, though, reject evolution despite various lists that creationists may accumulate. Similar to the creationists, '9/11 truthers' also present lists of people. Right on the front page of ae911truth.org, one of the first group of lines of text seen reads "1,601 verified architectural and engineering professionals and 13,342 other supporters have signed the petition demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation."
Truth is not a matter of popularity. When scientists reach a consensus, their ideas are not justified simply because there are so many people who accept them, but rather because the evidence warrants a consensus and because there is no reasonable doubt. While specifics or predictions made by the background theory might be questionable, the background theory itself does not suddenly become unjustified.


While I have not devoted a significant amount of time to study of the 9/11 attacks, I can spot fallacious thinking when I see it. Creationists and '9/11 truthers' commit very similar errors in thinking...not to mention the fact that much of the information they present has been discredited or 'answered' in various venues.

Legal issues surround prayer event at Northern Lebanon School District

I published a new article on Examiner.com titled "Legal issues surround prayer event at Northern Lebanon School District." View this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for updates via e-mail.

Correspondence with a Theologian

In many of my posts, I casually mention the phrases "reason, argument, and evidence" along with "reasons for belief," "justification," and "warrant." I don't believe that I have dedicated a post explicitly discussing what I mean by these terms nor have I explained what it means in relation to supernatural claims or God. I have mainly discussed why arguments for supernatural claims fail and have provided defeaters -- reasons to not believe a certain claim -- but have not explicitly discussed what I think would be sufficient for belief in God.

A reader of my work who happens to be a theist has graciously taken the time to respond to some of my posts via e-mail. He said that he has no problem with me using this information that I sent to him as a blog post. I wish to comment on some of the points brought up in the communication in order to share my thoughts on some matters with my audience. While this may be lengthy, I haven't gone into too much deep discussion on every point, so if you feel that there is need for further clarification or I didn't properly address an issue, please comment.

The commenter notes that belief in God not need follow a scientific model and that not all beliefs need to take the form of factual assertions. I partially agree with this and agree with Massimo Pigliucci's criticism of Dawkins and others of treating God as a "scientific hypothesis" is an improper way to approach things. This, though, doesn't get 'theists off the hook' nor does it allow God to be placed at a 'low level' not needing a large deal of justification or allowing belief in God to be reached via a leap of faith or because it simply seems that God exists a la Alvin Plantinga.

Carl Sagan famously said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Theodore Shick took this one step further, as he should have, and added "and exemplary explanations." In my "Defense of Reason" philosophy capstone paper, I explained what Shick calls "criterion of adequacy" to evaluate competing explanations: testability, scope, fruitfulness, simplicity, and conservatism. While it might not be the case that God be be subjected to measurement such that scientific claims can be, we can still evaluate god claims in comparison with others: mainly in the framing of naturalism (the idea that all that exists is the natural world) vs. supernaturalism (the idea that a supernatural world exists in addition to the natural world).

As far as naturalism is concerned, we see that, as we evaluate claims given in the past, nautralistic explanations for that which we previously found to be supernatural have panned out; lightning, for example, turned out to be explainable without asserting anything supernatural, for instance. When we find supernatural claims that are testable, we find that supernatural claims do not hold up. We find that supernatural claims do not have much explanatory power because they raise more questions than they answer that turn out to be unanswered while, in comparison, naturalistic claims (although one can posit a regress of sorts that does not terminate) do not raise unanswered questions. Supernatural claims fail in the criterion of simplicity because they require less 'stuff' while naturalistic claims don't assume extra entities. Regarding the criterion of conservatism, supernatural claims fail because they do not cohere with the way we know the world works. Regarding the criterion of fruitfulness, supernatural claims can not possibly assert novel predictions because the supernatural claims are initially contestable and do not demonstrate anything new.

Even if one may consider supernatural claims to not require the same level of justification as other claims, why this would ever be the case I do not know, supernatural claims have many objections that they must overcome such as, in the case of God, the problem of evil. As I mentioned, the inductive argument for naturalism is also a huge issue. The problem of thousands of different religions throughout the world and history also poses a problem to belief in a specific god in addition to 'divine hiddenness.' Even if one believes that belief in God is warranted through whatever means one may have, 'defeaters' pose serious problems to belief in God.

Some atheists, one might say, put too much of a spotlight on science/the scientific method and do not consider philosophy (mainly epistemology). The commenter, in a communication, mentions that he believes in the value of friendship and his marriage and does not need to base such a belief on strict evidential grounds. Questions of value can not be answered by science although scientific findings can inform our beliefs. For example, if we assume that well-being is a good benchmark for what we should value, we can look at what does not benefit society (namely splashing battery acid in the faces of women as Sam Harris mentions), but one does not need to look to scientific findings to establish such things.

Philosophers recognize which is called the "is-ought gap" which, boiled down, is the problem from going from a statement of what is to a statement about what one should do. We can find evidence about how the world is, but we can not go from such evidence to give us a way to act without first positing a value judgment (that mainly is informed by rational reflection). As far as friendship is concerned, we can posit reasons for why we should value friendship (mutual benefit, increase of happiness, bonding, ability to confide in someone...) and perhaps can not find solid evidence for stating why we should value friendship. This, though, doesn't suddenly justify belief in God if, like friendship (or not), we are going to say that God is some abstract entity.

The belief "friendship is beneficial" is quite uncontroversial, is not taken for granted, can be demonstrated to be true (although we perhaps cannot provide 'hard evidence' because it is a value judgment) and is not met by significant counter-arguments. The belief "God exists" is very controversial, is typically based on is or augmented by faith, can not be demonstrated, and is met by significant counter-arguments.

The commenter that belief in God is not just about the existence of God, but is about some other factors - namely commitment, risk, and reward. This, unfortunately, is an argument from utility (a belief is beneficial, so I am justified in believing it or should hold it) a la the pragmatism of William James. (I've tackled William James' "The Will to Believe" in a previous post/essay, so feel free to read that.) The benefits that one reaps from holding a belief in God, though, can be had through other means without presuming that God exists. The commenter notes that Christianity is filled with moral challenge, compelling stories, excitement had during masses, etc. One can have these things, though, without asserting that the Christian god exists and that supernatural claims found within Christianity are true (not in the sense of 'truthful fiction,' 'moral truth,' or the like).

As I sometimes note, I can be a great fan of Lord of the Rings or some other well-written and compelling series and learn some great lessons, take pleasure in reading the stories, embody some of the virtues in the stories, and connect with a great community of fans. I can do all of this without believing that the events in the stories actually happened. Why then, I ask, should the Christian persist in God-belief instead of labeling him/herself as a "Cultural Christian" or a "Humanistic Christian?" Why not forfeit the supernatural beliefs and rephrase them to the point of a good story or a guide for living? While some Christians certainly do not endorse the claptrap that is often associated with fundamentalists or 'juvenile believers,' they can do much good by not lumping their God belief in with the others and arguing against the 'juvenile believers' who may spread utter falsehoods and harmful ideas (it seems that the atheists are often those loud voices, not the academic Christians, but this may be an oversight on my part...).

The commenter goes on to cite Aquinas' Five Ways can be a springboard of sorts to believe, but the Five Ways are deeply problematic. All of the Ways basically assume that there is a being that is a cause for everything else that is God. Why can't it be the case that the initial cause for everything is an uncaused cause that is not God? Why can't it be the case that another being is the cause and it is long since dead? Way 4 assumes that since some things are better or worse than others that there must be a 'maximum cause' for everything. Why must this be the case...and why, even if we are to accept this, should we call it God? The 5th way is the argument from design which assumes that intelligence can not be had without deriving from an intelligent source (and this is false). Aquinas' scientific knowledge was quite limited because of his time and it shows in his Five Ways that are in the large wastebin of dated and flawed philosophical arguments.

The commenter continues to say that while belief in God may not be completely warranted, the belief is worth the risk (and he notes that this is not a re-hash of Pascal's Wager or because of fear of Hell). Why bother even taking the risk to begin with, I ask, and not instead reap the benefits that the belief may give without endorsing supernatural claims or dressing such beliefs up as God claims?

The commenter notes, as some have had to me recently in an Eastern Philosophy meetup, that my enterprise of separating my beliefs from my emotions and wanting to look as disinterested and objectively as possible at my beliefs would cause me to cease being human or otherwise is extraordinarily difficult. I don't believe I would cease to be human if I were able to completely distance 'myself' from 'my beliefs' and I acknowledge that this enterprise is difficult, but that does not mean that we should cease to try to 'step back from our beliefs' or critically engage our own ideas (I'm not sure what the commenter is suggesting, but I'll go on anyway).

Thomas Nagel's "The View From Nowhere" deals with these concerns and notes, as the the top of my page says that "Pursuit of the truth requires more than imagination: it requires the generation and decisive elimination of alternative possibilities until, ideally, only one remains, and it requires a habitual readiness to attack one's own convictions." While we can't take a completely disinterested view of our own beliefs (or may find it very difficult to do so), this should not defeat this enterprise or give us a 'get out of jail free card' when it comes to holding beliefs that may not be justified.

The commenter goes on to note that saying "God exists" is not the same as saying something like "this computer exists." Fine, if God is more of an abstract entity or perhaps even an idea, that may be the case. Theologians and other Christian thinkers may think of God in different ways than most believers do...but the idea or abstract entity still faces the same criticisms mainly "where is the evidence, reason, or argument that gives justification for belief in God." Atheists, of course, aren't the ones defining God. Atheists might often respond to how others define God (typically as an all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing entity that sent his son Jesus to literally die on the cross for the sins of humankind) and attack these claims. If the theist wants to provide a different type of definition, that is fine, but atheists will still ask the same sorts of questions about this claim.

While my main goal here on this blog and perhaps elsewhere is to argue for the need for justified true belief and, of course, argue against faith-based or unsubstantiated belief, I find differing levels of quarrel with those in different stations. As far as theologians are concerned, I don't have too much of a disagreement and would dramatically shift my focus in this blog and elsewhere to differing topics if every religious person were like academic theologians; while I disagree with academic theologians, I don't find them behind much of the harm associated with religion that persists throughout our current time (and, of course, the past).

I care about the truth and want society to flourish with justified true beliefs. I want to challenge my own beliefs and do my best to hold no unjustified/false beliefs. While this enterprise may be impossible and I may have 'blinders,' I can still do my best to hold as many justified true beliefs as possible through sharing my ideas with an audience who will critique my beliefs, have discussions with those who disagree with me, and generally exposing myself to opposing ideas.

As always, I am willing to have ongoing communication with those who may disagree with me and am very happy to have it...especially when the discussion is quite reasonable, substantive, and worth the time.

Abington Heights students, supported by principal, participate in prayer event

I published a new article on Examiner.com titled "Abington Heights students, supported by principal, participate in prayer event." View this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for updates via e-mail.

Christian evangelist Ray Comfort equates abortion with genocide of Jews

I published a new article on Examiner.com titled "Christian evangelist equates abortion with genocide of Jews." View this article and more content on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for e-mail notification of new articles!

Examiner.com Update!

I was recently notified by Examiner.com that my articles no longer need to be local, thus I will be writing much more frequently and will be able to cover many more issues that have nothing to do with Northeastern Pennsylvania. Expect about five articles or more a week!

Written Debate with JD Curtis?

About a week ago, I authored a posted titled "Where have all the dissenters gone?" in which I noted that many of my dissenters -- who were more than happy to send me hate mail, levy personal attacks, and not have an actual conversation -- are now unwilling to have discussions after I give them a chance to have a public formal debate [in Northeastern Pennsylvania]. Blogger JD Curtis of the blog "Trees for Lunch" (The place to discuss Christianity, Right Wing Politics, and which beer is best) left a comment on the "...dissenters" post saying "Justin, if you are interested in a written debate, simply email me. It would have to be a good topic though.

I have not followed up on JD's comment and did not construe such a comment as a "challenge," but nonetheless, JD added a counting-up timer on his blog (look on the right sidebar) titled "Time Elapsed Since I Challenged Justin Vacula to a Debate Clock." The timer is currently at 6 days and 13 hours at the time of this posting.

On 7/30/11, I issued a public debate challenge to Northeastern Pennsylvania on behalf of the NEPA Freethought Society in which I wrote that people I would consider debating would need some qualifications. I mainly included this because I do not wish to debate every Joe Shmo off of the street. I want to have a fair debate, a reasonable discussion, and not a situation in which I am 'propping myself up' by debating people who are dubious.

Some positions that people may hold might disqualify them from debating because their ideas are really silly. Some of these positions might include 9/11 being a conspiracy by the US government, evolution denial, AIDS denial, holocaust denial, anti-gay bigotry, etc (and JD obviously doesn't hold all of these positions...I am just listing examples). I don't want to give people like this the 'time of the day' in a public debate and somehow make their position look tenable because I would be willing to engage them in a debate. Some people might hold what I consider silly beliefs, but I would be willing to make exceptions on some issues.

JD Curtis, though, is an interesting story. Many of his blog posts commit egregious errors in logic that often reveal that he doesn't know what his 'opponents' actually are claiming. To start, he has a "Where's the Birth Certificate" banner on his website (including a post), has Ray Comfort in his blogroll, and constantly uses LifeSiteNews, World Net Daily, and Conservapedia as sources he thinks are legitimate.

He believes, presumably because he posts it, that "atheists are demonstrably more autistic," quotes someone who knows nothing about what evolution claims and uses this as a reliable source, thinks Rick Perry is not anti-science, spreads propaganda about abortion claiming that it increases mental health disorders by 81%, believes Ann Coulter is a reliable source that one can use to falsify evolution, calls the Norway killer a 'Darwinist' and not a Christian, talks about geological evidence for Noah's flood (and presumably believes it literally happened), calls the separation of church and state "non-existent," and much more. Many of these posts from JD are quite recent. He may have changed his mind on some of these issues, but I am unaware of any such cognitive shifts.

I wonder...why should I have a written debate with JD Curtis? What are his qualifications...and why should I debate someone who 'gets it wrong' so often? ...and why is there a clock ticking on his website? I was never challenged to a debate, but rather was told that I could e-mail him if I was interested.

I'm not sure what to think here, about whether I should or should not have a written debate with JD, so I welcome comments...and especially from JD.

Responding to "Atheists Tackle Simple Theology and Arguments"

Although I have not received the criticism of "you tackle simple theology and simple arguments" very much, atheists -- particularly those labeled "new atheists" (whatever that means) -- receive this criticism from their critics. During the recording of the NEPA Freethought Society's first podcast, I couldn't help to think that some of the assertions being made by local individuals were very easy to attack because they seemed quite elementary, fallacious, silly, or otherwise problematic at face value. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately?) many arguments for gods can't stand the criticism and are typically very easy to pick apart. Atheists often attack weak arguments and then are criticized for not going after "serious arguments," but what can we possibly tackle if all of the arguments do not stand philosophical scrutiny?

After about two years of devoting a very large deal of time to participating in religious discussions, reading books, listening to debates, blogging about religious arguments, etc, I feel that I've 'heard it all' and don't find many new arguments for gods that I haven't previously tackled. While arguments may be more refined and while Christian academics may have thought about some of the issues more, their arguments are similar to those of lay theists who haven't considered the issues. If there are some really good arguments out there, I simply haven't heard them.

How about four popular arguments from one of the most renowned and respected apologists? I will note the main flaws, but I will not tackle them all here in full because they would require entire individual posts (and I have tackled these in previous posts that will be linked in this post).

Take, for example, William Lane Craig. One of his main arguments is the 'Moral Argument' which comes in many forms (You can't make sense of objective moral values without God. Objective moral values do exist. Therefore God exists.). This argument ultimately boils down to an argument from ignorance (I can't explain objective moral values, therefore God exists). Morality can be explained without invoking a god and morality coming from God is problematic because of the Euthyphro Dilemma. For more, please read my "A Naturalistic Explanation of Morality: Refuting the Moral Argument" and my "Making Sense of Ethics in a Modern Scientific Worldview."

Argument two is the 'Fine Tuning Argument' which also comes in many forms (The universe is so finely tuned for our existence; for if the values for the fundamental constants for the universe were a wee bit different, human life would not exist. These values can only come about by chance or design. It couldn't be by chance. Therefore the universe was designed by God.). This argument mainly fails because of a flawed understanding of probability. Given the vastness of the universe, it would be fair to expect somewhere where life would arise (and would also be reasonable to believe that there is life on some other planet) because there are so many different combinations of these values which would arise and be conducive to life. Why assume that any god would be needed here? Further, just because something seems 'finely tuned' (even if it is the case that if the values were wee different that there wouldn't be life or other values wouldn't work) does not entail that god did it. This argument appears to be another "I can't explain this or this seems special, therefore god" move. I've addressed this more in detail here.

Argument three is the 'Kalam Cosmological Argument.' The argument is typically similar to this: Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. The universe has a cause. That cause is God. How does it follow that God created the universe? This argument asserts that God is uncaused and therefore created the universe (because everything else has a cause and we can't have an infinite regress, apparently). Why can't it be the case that the universe is uncaused or that the cause of the universe is not God (but rather the big bang)? I haven't addressed this in length in my blog just yet (particularly because I am not well versed in cosmology), but might get around to it at some point.

Argument four is the resurrection of Jesus. Craig asserts various points, depending on the debate (an empty tomb, followers of Jesus claiming to see Jesus after he died, Jesus' death by crucifixion on the cross, Jesus was buried, etc) and reasons, from these points, that the most rational explanation to draw is that Jesus was raised from the dead by God. For sake of length and for the sake of the argument, let's assume all of these points are true. How can a miraculous explanation, the least probable event possible, be the best explanation for the given data? Competing hypotheses that may be drawn from the data are far more probable. Further, just because we can't explain these facts doesn't entail that belief in a miracle is permissible. I have dealt with this and more here in my "Jesus Resurrection Claims..." post.

Where are these advanced arguments that warrant belief? Presumably, one would be able to understand why individual theists believe what they believe and can possibly get reasons from them. If one were to say, "you need to handle some 'serious theology'" and then not note that the 'serious theology' is (by actually stating the argument instead of pointing to a book), this seems tremendously problematic. The theist seems, at this point, to admit that he/she does believe for the reason mentioned in the 'serious theology' and instead may be admitting that he/she believes based on a weak reason.

Many of my blog posts are actually the results of conversations I have with theists and atheists. After conversations with some theists, I author blog posts discussing the arguments...and naturally 'cover' that which I encounter. I can only answer to that which is given to me and what I've been given so far is quite lackluster. This elusive 'serious theology,' apparently, is not commonplace and not provided by those who believe in gods. I can go hunting for some of this 'serious theology,' but what I have seen so far wasn't very interesting.

I also tackle what some might say are 'simplistic arguments' because many give these are reasons why they belief or otherwise state these reasons when asked why they believe.

I have also attended a speech given by a theologian named John Haught in order to interact with 'serious theology' (ironically he is a critic of the "new atheists"). Haught argued that "God likes drama;" evolution and our universe, Haught argued, is one big "cosmic story" that God authored and if the universe were perfect, there would be no "drama" and no "story" (or at least the story that we have now, to be charitable). He also argued that people make Christianity more complex that it need be because the two main points are God's love for the world and incomprehensible mystery (although, apparently, Haught believes that "God loves drama").

Haught's arguments are deeply problematic and do not suggest any sort of all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing God exists. If "drama" is so important, I would wager that an omni-god can create the "drama" without so much destruction in the universe. This "drama" also is not consistent with an omni-god. If anything, it seems that Haught is applying post-hoc reasoning to 'save' his 'god theory' by asserting trying to reconcile the current state and history of the universe with an omni-god by putting "drama" up on some pedestal. My full critique of Haught's 'serious theology' can be found here.

I am also the product of a Catholic education (as far as Catechism is concerned) in my younger years, have attended church on a regular basis, took theology courses at college, attended various religious discussions at college, and interacted with many believers. I have not seen this 'serious theology' or any argument that has given me pause.

This 'serious theology' reminds me of when I encounter religious groups proselytizing in public who refuse to have discussions. Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, sometimes distribute literature in local areas. I ask them why they believe what they believe and their answers usually consist of "look at the trees, you can't explain how this world looks so designed." After a few lines like this showing that they obviously haven't considered the arguments against their positions, I often hear "our debating guy isn't here" (and the debating guy is almost never there). This 'serious theology' is quite similar to 'the debating guy' because they're both never available.

Assume, for sake of argument, that some atheists indeed do tackle 'simple theology' and make silly arguments. It simply does not follow that religious belief is warranted or that atheists attacking 'serious theology' are not out there. Critics attack Richard Dawkins, for example, for attacking a 'juvenile faith' and discount him because of this. Well, what is the sophisticated faith and why should we believe the claims?

Many atheists have different perspectives. Some may go after the common silly arguments and some, like me, may often tackle the bigger issues. Personally, I don't like discussing the Bible because I want to get at the 'meat of the arguments' by raising objections to fundamental claims made by believers by raising philosophical issues. Can I be charged with not discussing 'serious theology' when I have commented extensively on a very wide range of issues that theists commonly use? Where is this mystical 'serious theology?' Please send all inquiries to the comments section if you feel that I have not addressed something.

Send Me Your Questions!

The NEPA Freethought Society, the group that I am a co-organizer of, will be recording its first podcast episode this weekend and is interested in receiving and answering questions from all sorts of people who are interested in the topics of philosophy, religion, atheism, etc. I will be one of the hosts on the show, so I would also be willing to answer more personalized questions about my writings, activism, or whatever else is appropriate.

If you act quickly, your question may be answered in the first episode! If not, we can answer it in a future show. Please send your questions to jvacula@nepafreethought.org.

Perhaps this can allow those who disagree with me on issues but do not post here or elsewhere to have their concerns addressed. I await e-mail from all of my fans whether they be negative, positive, or neutral.

"Belief Intolerance"

Throughout my tenure as a blogger, a contrarian, an activist, an out atheist, and whatever other labels one may affix to me, I've been called all sorts of things from offensive, intolerant, a person who doesn't listen to the other side of the story and just criticizes, pompous, arrogant, pompous, holier-than-thou, attention whore, a dick and a jerk, a dumb fuck, one of the most hated people in the 'valley,' the third most hated person in Luzerne County, a Nazi (or perhaps just a faggot), a "douche bag," and much more from the loving theists of Luzerne County and beyond. Many of these people and others who haven't directly sent hate mail to me or posted hate in a public forum have called me intolerant (but apparently, their comments were not) for publishing my views (which no one is compelled to read), for noting a church/state violation when the county officials and lawyers among others agreed with me, and challenging widely accepted beliefs.

I have noted in various posts of mine, specifically in a recent post in which I argued that disagreement should not be thought of as disrespect and beliefs should be thought of as separate from persons (not in any epistemological way). Many people, because they identify so closely with their beliefs and cherish their beliefs, consider any sort of disagreement as a personal attack akin to making horrible statements about one's friends and family members. Many have fooled themselves into the myth that "beliefs deserve respect" and "everyone has the right to their own opinion." This might be a product of post-modernism (or perhaps a "post-post modernism"), religious pluralism (the idea that everyone has a close idea of what God is and everyone is kind of right so they can be saved), a lack of absolute certainty (we can't be totally sure about things), past revision of beliefs we have held, and a koombyah tolerance that might have something to do with inter-faith events.

Whatever the cause, many have taken the bait and claim immunity from challenges to their beliefs. People will try to argue that those who challenge beliefs are doing something wrong and should stop doing so when considering many areas of life although this typically isn't a global phenomena; if someone says that one's favorite restaurant is horrible, for example, this might be permissible, but don't dare challenge religion or oddly enough one's favorite football team!

I completely reject the idea, as you might expect, that beliefs should be respected and that people should have a moral obligation to refrain from challenging beliefs. I have tried, in many situations, to determine what the phrase "respect beliefs" actually means, but the definitions I get are fuzzy and usually boil down to "don't challenge the beliefs of a person." One example that was given in a discussion that was productive and worthwhile was that if a person, for religious reasons, did not consume pork, slipping pork into one's food would be disrespecting beliefs. I don't think this is a matter of disrespecting beliefs at all, but rather being disrespectful of a person. Anyway...

If I am intolerant of anything, one might say that I am intolerant of beliefs because I don't think they deserve any respect. I usually reject this notion of "respecting beliefs" because it seems silly - beliefs have no cognition and can't be offended. I feel the need to challenge beliefs -- while 'picking battles' and being respectful, professional, productive, aiming to generate a positive outcome, and remembering that encounters I have with individuals might be the first or first few encounters with active atheists -- and I don't have to hold back, accommodate religion (or whatever else is the topic of discussion), or compromise my principles to do so. I tackle the arguments with no mercy rather than attacking persons.

In the case of beliefs about an objective reality in which a truth can be discerned (or not), a proposition is either backed by evidence, argument, and reason or it is not backed by evidence, argument, and reason. We might be able to offer an infinite amount of competing explanations for any given phenomena (faeries really generate the electricity in your lightbulbs... but they are invisible...and they are shy, so when you try to detect them they teleport away), but we can weigh competing explanations and even if we can't 'disprove' or 'prove' certain explanations we can determine, in many cases, what is most reasonable to believe based on the given evidence and criteria of adequacy such as testability, scope, fruitfulness, conservatism, and simplicity. 

In the case of "right to opinion," it might be the case that one has a legal right to believe something (a government won't arrest someone for holding a belief), but why should one have immunity from challenges to the beliefs that he/she holds and why should challenging beliefs be viewed as immoral? I will concede some points here to clear some confusion - I do not advocate that challenging beliefs is permissible in every situation and acknowledge that 'battles should be picked.' For example, it's probably a really bad idea and would be quite silly to run into funeral homes saying "You loved one is not with God!" or running into nursery homes and looking for rooms with crosses in them to tell people "You're not going to Heaven!" I also don't believe that everyone should be required to defend their beliefs (although people with high influence and especially those who voice their opinions really should and should be held to higher standards than laypersons...and 1 Peter 3:15 tells Christians to give a defense to those who ask for it). Regardless, people should have justification for their beliefs.

In a general situation, and especially in those in which someone brings up a topic such as astrology into a conversation, there should be no problem if one challenges the belief that a month one is born in influences his/her personality (especially when there is no scientific consensus supporting astrological beliefs and and a great deal of counter-evidence). I have uttered this following phrase many times, "If you don't want to talk about it, why bring it up?" A fellow friend of mine named Ashley knows I am a skeptic and an atheist, but she continues to ask me questions about topics (this is a good thing!) when she knows how I will answer...and then she gets angry when I answer. One such conversation went like this: "What do you think about astrology?" "I don't think the position of the stars have anything to do with your personality" and she was angered after saying "Oh, there you go again!"

In more general situations in which someone challenges beliefs you hold there should be no problems whatsoever with responding to criticism. A few weeks ago, I was selling candy bars for a fundraiser for my atheist group and an autism benefit group. A person in the room who is a theist, doesn't like the fact that I am an atheist, or a combination of both, said something similar to "I don't want to give money to a group of people who believe in nothing and believe they are going nowhere when they die." In the past, this person has made similar informed and ridiculous statements about atheists and when he is challenged he says "I don't want to talk about it" or otherwise exits the conversation in some manner. Apparently, for people like this, it is impermissible to challenge their beliefs, but they can make uninformed and ridiculous comments about others' beliefs and then claim immunity from follow-up discussion.

If I am going to be respectful of persons, aim to have a fair discussion, act professionally, and be charitable, what is so 'bad' about me holding an opinion that is different than yours and voicing it? Can't we simply talk about the issues and try to understand why we disagree? Why should I feel some moral obligation to sit down and shut up just because I don't agree with you?

Philosopher John Locke had argued that truthful propositions can stand inquiry and should be subjected to inquiry, but it's often the case that positions that can least stand inquiry are the ones that people frequently argue should be immune from inquiry [for fear of a person being offended]. It may be very difficult to convince many people that ideas should be subjected to criticism [for very good reasons that are mostly beneficial to the person holding a particular belief].

Challenging beliefs is beneficial because it allows people who are open-minded honest thinkers to carefully consider their positions, hear objections they may have never heard, and ultimately hold more justified beliefs and less unjustified beliefs. If we find that our beliefs happen to be wrong, we can correct our beliefs and be right in the future.

I refuse to 'sit down and shut up' and am 'intolerant of beliefs' in the sense of me not wanting to pay respect to them. I especially should not 'respect beliefs' that are responsible for a great amount of harm, are unsubstantiated, or are perpetuating falsehoods. Regardless of the harm a belief may or may not cause or whether a person acts on certain beliefs (even though beliefs inform actions), I am not going to 'leave beliefs alone' just because people claim that I have some moral responsibility to do so. In a general sense and barring special circumstances, I see no reason that should lead me to the conclusion that challenging one's cherished beliefs is improper.

Where have all the dissenters gone?

(see what I did there?)

In recent months, there has been a profound lack of substantive discussion from people who disagree with me on my blog, Facebook, and elsewhere. Many people will write anonymous (and not anonymous) comments in local newspaper that consist of nothing more than personal attacks and ridiculous assertions that clearly show that they have not really considered the arguments against their position, do not have an argument, are not able to have a discussion, have not taken the time to understand what I believe about certain issues, and have not really thought about their own beliefs. This is quite unfortunate.

In December of 2009, a local hate campaign which was surprisingly (or not) associated with radio disc jockey Jumpin' Jeff Walker from KRZ radio -- a man turned-off by "bleeding heart liberals" who called me the "third most hated person in Luzerne County" on live radio during an interview consisted of little more than personal attacks, threats, conclusions based on false premises, and malice. People from all over 'the valley' sent me hate mail, wanted me to be expelled from college, threatened me with violence and hellfire, and supported many hypotheses I had before I filed a church/state complaint against a courthouse nativity scene [more on the nativity controversy including hate mail and nasty comments can be found here].

Before December of 2009, I realized that many people simply don't want to have discussions with people who disagree with them, 'step outside of their beliefs,' and consider objections to their beliefs. When I received a tremendous amount of hate mail, much of this was greatly supported. At the time, there was a lack of reasonable arguments against my position (and not just because I believed I was right and county officials admitted that the display was unconstitutional) and today...there is still a lack of reasonable arguments.

I have issued a public debate challenge on behalf of the NEPA Freethought Society in the letters to the editor section in the Citizen's Voice, my Examiner.com page, my blog, and elsewhere. While individual pastors may not have read the text of the challenge, individual believers have noticed the challenge who are free to tell their religious leaders. In September of 2010, I issued a similar debate challenge to King's College...and no theologian, teacher, or priest accepted the challenge. Some noted that since I was a student, the challenge was not accepted, but no there can be no excuse from King's or the community at large. I've graduated, now have some credentials, have commented on related issues for quite some time, am somewhat of a public figure, am the co-organizer of a local atheist group, etc, etc.

After recently meeting someone on a dating site who said that she was attracted to me and wanted to date revealed later -- after hours of phone discussion, text messaging, and quite compelling words -- that she was a "super Christian" who really wanted to convert me, my previously mentioned hypotheses were further reinforced: people often don't want to have the discussion, don't want to challenge their beliefs, etc. If she really wanted to convert me, why wouldn't she just have the discussion whether it was through texting, e-mails, or phone discussion?

Further, many religious texts mention the need to evangelize, prepare a defense for your beliefs and give it to others who ask, and 'save souls.' What better way can there be to 'save souls' than have the discussion? Religious people should know that preaching and appealing to scriptures is unlikely to 'turn' an atheist and that many atheist bloggers like myself are interested in the discussion and willing to have it...but few are taking the opportunity to discuss despite 'saving souls' being so important.

It is quite easy to levy personal attacks, but it takes some time and effort to offer a substantive response to those who happen to hold a certain belief that is at odds with someone else. It might be quite easy to 'just believe' and not question one's cherished beliefs. For some, it might be the case that inconsistencies are overlooked when beliefs conflict, the inconsistencies are personally threatening to the point of not wanting to confront the inconsistencies, or one has simply given up rationality in one area of life (or a few) thus falling into a rationalization trap.

Saving souls is so important and Heaven is the greatest possible reward...

but I don't care to 'spread the word.'

There is a scientific consensus on the matter of evolution that includes theists...

but I believe that creationism is essential to my theistic belief.

Atheists are moral people...

but they have no morality because morality has to come from a belief in a god.

I understand that because something exists in nature does not entail that it is moral...

but meat-eating is part of our evolutionary history, so it is permissible.

Evidence is important for my beliefs...

but faith in God is okay.

God loves everyone and Christians are supposed to love everyone...

but it it okay to attack atheists because they don't believe in God and are going to hell.

I understand that all who disagree can't reasonably be expected to post about their disagreement and also acknowledge that every theist can't be expected to comment on my blog posts...but there are many theists who 'talk behind my back' saying about how horrible of a person I am, how I am wrong about everything, etc. and they don't talk the time to actually learn about me, read my posts, and understand why I believe what I believe. There is a huge problem with this that admits of cowardice, intellectual dishonesty, and intellectual laziness.

About a year ago, a theist I went to school with actually took the time to send me a Facebook message saying that he wanted to chat with me and I was quite happy about this, but when we met his first two 'arguments' were Pascal's Wager and 'you can't disprove God.' Clearly, he hasn't considered arguments against his position.

I welcome dissent because it keeps me honest, allows me to address something I may have missed, provides an alternative perspective I may not have thought of, and might even change my stance on some issues. It is certainly no fun 'preaching to the choir' (and I know this is not the case because many theists read my posts, but just don't comment), so I want people who disagree to comment.

While discussion is certainly not for everyone and some people simply do not wish to post, there are certainly people out there who disagree with me on many issues who enjoy the discussion...but they are not having it for the most part. Even if one is not comfortable discussing, comments can still be left to gain understanding, raise an issue, or say about how I might be missing the point.

As always, I welcome comments on my posts and elsewhere. Feel free to disagree. If you mostly agree with me and happen to disagree on some finer points or pose a question, feel free to do that.

Religious of NEPA respond to flooding

I published an article on Examiner.com titled "Religious of NEPA respond to flooding." View this article, my other content, and please subscribe to my page.

President of Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers commemorates 9/11

I recently pubished an article on Examiner.com titled "President of Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers commemorates 9/11." Please view this article and others on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe!

"Learning from the 9/11 Tragedy" - Remarks delivered by Jason Torpy on 9/11/11 at the PA State Capitol

Jason Torpy, president of the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, recently gave a speech on 9/11/11 at the Pennsylvania state capitol at PA Nonbelievers' 9/11 remembrance event. Torpy has graciously contributed the full-text of his speech in order to share with my readers and be posted on my website and an associated Examiner.com article. The full text and short bio of Torpy follows:

Mr. Torpy serves as the President of the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers (MAAF), a national non-profit building community for nontheistic veterans. Mr. Torpy also holds seats on the board of the Secular Coalition for America, the premier lobbying organization for secular issues, and the American Humanist Association, which fosters Humanist community and ethics.

After joining the military in 1994, Mr. Torpy has been active with the nontheist community. He has addressed issues of separation of church and state and equal opportunity for nontheistic service members in Army basic training, Army parachutist training, military academy programs, and in combat situations. Mr. Torpy's education includes a Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering Management from West Point and a Masters Degree in Business Administration from The Ohio State University.

After earning top graduate honors from two intelligence training programs, Mr. Torpy was offered direct admission to the United States Military Academy. Upon graduation, Mr. Torpy was commissioned as an officer and served for five years in Germany, Kuwait, and Iraq with the Army's 1st Armored Division. He left the service in 2005 at the rank of Captain to pursue an MBA. Mr. Torpy currently lives in Washington, DC.

Mr. Torpy speaks on a range of issues related to the atheist, humanist, and general nontheist community, especially as these issues relate to the military. Jason has spoken to large audiences at national conventions, awards banquets, outdoor events, and press conferences, as well as radio appearances on programs such as BBC World Today, Alan Colmes, Michael Medved, and Michael Smerconish. Fees are generally $200-$500 plus travel costs, but may be waived for topics related to MAAF or local to DC. Booking details and additional information can be found at speakersite.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Learning from the 9/11 Tragedy

Remarks delivered by Jason Torpy, President of the Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers to the Pennsylvania Nonbelievers, 9/11/2011, at the Pennsylvania State Capitol in Harrisburg, PA

I want to open by talking about why I'm here today. 9/11 is a tragedy, not a holiday or a political platform or a reason to justify or condemn ideologies. Proper activities to mark the anniversary of a tragedy do not include media blitzes, profiteering, or recruiting. Proper activities include respect and consolation for the families of the victims, first and foremost. Also included, I think, is a solemn effort to learn from the tragedy, both the causes and our reactions. It is this latter activity that I hope to focus on today – how did we react to 9/11, how can we prevent the next 9/11, and when tragedy strikes again, how can we better react.

On 9/11 2001, 3000 people died, with thousands more injured. This was a coordinated series of 4 hijackings by 19 Al Qaeda operatives. In the dismay of such a large attack on US soil, the institution of patriotic, xenophobic, religious, and militaristic fervor instilled in the population by our leaders has resulted in a decade of wars and the degeneration of a century of American goodwill around the world. Everyone knows these basic, terrible facts. I fought in Iraq in 2003 and 2004. For over a year, I served with the Army's 1^st Armored Division first holding Baghdad and then moving south to quell a political Shi'i uprising. Even then, I had questions about deploying. My motives were simple: To help the Iraqi people rebuild from our invasion and the removal of Saddam Hussein.

Many other people -- soldiers, leaders, voters -- had many other purposes in mind: a Christian crusade to convert Muslims, a corporate push to seize Middle East oil, a breakup of a terrorist stronghold, a defensive action to stop a nuclear attack, an imperialistic expansion of western dominance, simple vengeance, and even blind, stupid politics. On Big Think, David Ropeik, a Harvard instructor specializing in risk and fear recently wrote, "The war in Iraq was possible only because the American public was afraid." All those reasons, in some combination, were held by all the soldiers in Iraq and the leaders that sent soldiers to Iraq. All those reasons were in the minds of American allies, American enemies, and of the people we were supposedly trying to liberate.

But were any of those reasons valid? I don't have the answers, but as we continue these wars and consider the next war, in Libya, or Somalia, or Egypt, or Iran, or Russia, or China, I hope we reject corporate interests, imperial interests, and most of all fear and vengeance. Some people say proudly that they are already against the next war. Can we rest comfortably in a cocoon of pacifism, ignoring cries for help from the oppressed, calls for support from our allies, and threats of violence from those who would do us harm? When we have humanitarian and purely defensive goals, military action is sometimes the only recourse in a violent world. Silent protests, airlifts of food, diplomatic action, and NGOs are part of the toolset, but, war is also an option.

Invasion of Afghanistan was the immediate response to 9/11, barely a month after the attacks. The Afghanistan war has always been on a smaller scale, always been more closely related to the 9/11 attacks, and always been easier to label as a purely defensive action intended to root the terrorists out of their home in Taliban territory. In fact, my original order to Iraq was not for Operation Iraqi Freedom, but rather as an extension of Operation Enduring Freedom, the Afghanistan War operation. The character of that war and its continuance provided the military and political foundations for expansion of military action into Iraq. The expansion into Iraq also carried an expansion from national defense to more questionable goals and outcomes.

As we reflect on 9/11, we pause to remember the thousands who died. As atheists and humanists, we know that they are gone in the literal sense, but we can focus on their legacy and what we, the living, can learn from their lives and deaths. We the living will shape the legacy of those lost in the 9/11 attacks. We the living may grow from tragedy or perpetuate tragedy. Our reactions as a nation have resulted in over 6000 US dead in continuing wars, as well as those dead from coalition forces. The smallest estimates put civilian casualties in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars at well over 100,000. The near term economic cost of the 9/11 attacks were about one hundred billion dollars in lost GDP and rebuilding costs. The cost of war is impossible to pin down but is certainly well over a trillion dollars. Add to that cost the eradication of American goodwill around the world, the expansion of Executive war authority, and loss of freedoms due to the Patriot Act. Everyone should think very hard about whether they would trade those costs for another 9/11.

Last month, the International Humanist & Ethical Union held their triennial World Congress with a focus on Peace. As representative from the US Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers, I presented on humanists in military service. One key argument I made was the influence that we, as rationalists, skeptics, humanists, and ethical atheists, can bring to both Jus in Bello and Jus Ad Bellum, that is the entry into Just War and the execution of war in a just manner. As humanists, we have the opportunity to promote humanitarian rather than vengeful reaction to terrorism and tragedy. I can't say what the right response was to 9/11. I can't say whether invasion of Afghanistan, invasion of Iraq, or the continuance of either of those wars for so long was necessary to defend the United States. I can't help but wonder if the forces of terrorism could withstand a trillion dollars of roads, schools, and hospitals.

It is easy to fall into the animosity of "us and them," but humanity is not so diverse. In viewing a picture of the Earth taken by a space probe as it left the solar system, Sagan saw a pale blue dot. About this pale blue dot that was Earth, Sagan said,

From this distant vantage point, the Earth might not seem of any particular interest. But for us, it's different. Look again at that dot. That's here, that's home, that's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

This means that even in the face of tragedy, when the world swells from a pale blue dot to a monstrous and frightening eye of pain and misery, we must remember that we are all in this together. With all of our differences and fears and hurts and desires, we must see people as people, equal in worth and dignity. Even when we take up arms in order to free the oppressed from tyrants, it must be to bring us closer together and not merely to punish and destroy our brothers and sisters who may look different and live far away.

We humanists have no monopoly on morality. It is absolutely essential that we join hands with those Christians, Muslims, Jews, and other spiritual persons who identify more with a supernatural element to the world. This is important not least because we are brothers and sisters on this planet. For some humanists, our ideological commitment to naturalism and reason puts us at odds with adherents of various religions. It becomes easy and even comfortable to hold up those events of 9/11 as proof of the universal evils of religion. We cannot look at radical, violent religious extremism and call it mainstream religion. We have friends, family, co-workers, and even fellow townspeople who show the positive face of religion. Why exploit this tragedy to build bigger walls between us?

We should see this as an opportunity to reach out to those who have felt the deep despair of fellow humans doing evil, especially fellow humans who claim the same ideology. Whether by taking solace in a higher power or through a naturalistic and humanistic perspective, we all mourn in our own way. We can reach out and hold hands in order to understand the tragedy of 9/11 and to eliminate its causes. We can join hands to rise up against intolerance, religious division, and violent extremism. We can stand as allies in our goal of peace and unity, even if we draw our inspiration from different sources. We can console the victims and those closest to victims even better if we do so as partners without rancor and divisiveness.

But there are still those with a different agenda who will promote violence, condone the attacks as justified, look for conspiracies under every rock, or try to place blame on all those who carry labels like "Muslim" or "believer" or who have faces or skin colors similar to those of the hijackers. Will we join together against those who are different, or will we join together with those who seek peace? Will we seek out allies who seek peace, or will we seek out enemies to blame and to ostracize and to kill?

I hope that we can all keep in perspective that we are brothers and sisters on what Sagan called this pale blue dot. In the face of tragedy, I hope that our differences become smaller, not larger. As we consider military options, we should do so in order to free people from suffering, not to seek vengeance or to destroy enemies. We must ask ourselves hard questions about how we have reacted to the one great tragedy of 9/11. Have the wars, legislation, foreign policy, and cultural shifts in the United States been for the better or for the worse? If for the worse, then we can start today to change for the better. Solutions and salvation will only come from us, and can only be better when we respect our diversity and work together. We say that we will never forget 9/11. My hope is that we will continue to learn from 9/11.

Senator Yudichak: Keep Mentions of God out of Government

Recently, on live television during coverage of the NEPA flooding on WBRE, state senator John Yudichak said "Hopefully the good Lord will protect us" when commenting on the flood damage. I recently authored a letter to the state senator and await a response.

While I am in quite in-line with many of your political views, I am quite disappointed that, on live television on WBRE, you said "Hopefully the good Lord will protect us" when commenting on the flood damage. Citizens voted for you to do your job as a political official, not to make statements which are theological in nature.

While it might be the case that you hold religious beliefs and attend religious services on your own time, I would ask that you, as an elected official, do not make such comments or endorsements in your capacity as an elected official. Many, as you may know, in the 14th district hold various religious beliefs and no religious beliefs. Political officials should, instead of talking about 'the good Lord,' represent their constituents with no reference to religious beliefs.

Hopefully, your comment was a mere 'slip' and on other more pressing matters, you support a total separation of church and state similar to John F. Kennedy. Separation of church and state is important because, in the eyes of the government, all religious beliefs or lack thereof are viewed as equal; everyone benefits and is treated equally.

I await a response.

Thank you.

Justin Vacula, co-organizer of the NEPA Freethought Society

God and the NEPA flood

For those of you who are not aware, a devastating flood devastated the east coast of the United States and specifically impacted Northeastern Pennsylvania (where I live). During the flood coverage, newscasters, a state senator, and some residents of NEPA could not resist injecting God into the mix.

A newscaster on WBRE said "God works in mysterious ways" at 2:47 PM on Friday (10/9/11).

State senator John Yudichak (D) said "Hopefully the good Lord will protect us" on live TV. (Why a state senator is talking about 'the good Lord' on live TV is beyond me.)

Bishop Bambera of the Scranton Diocese said "For all who are suffering because of the flood and the damage it has caused, I pray for God's continued and [sic] protection and blessing over you" among other things.

On the Facebook page titled NEPA flood of 2011, some people have said "God is good. NEPA will get through this." and "The rainbow: signifies Gods promise to never flood the entire globe again (noahs arc). Keep God in your hearts! Hes with us all."

I've commented on these issues before arguing that natural evil serves as a defeater (should make you give a belief up) of belief in an all-powerful, all-loving, and all-knowing god in various posts. This, also, I think, is one of the most evident and well-known objections to belief in an omni-god that many theists have likely considered. The problem, though, is that theists make excuses for God such as "God is mysterious," "God's ways are higher than ours," and "There must be some 'greater good' that is achieved by natural disasters."

I responded to the two posters on the NEPA flood of 2011 page:

Marcy and Melanie, it is profoundly absurd to posit that after a great deal of our region was absolutely devastated there is an all-loving, all-good, and all-powerful God who exists (I am assuming this is what you believe, but please correct me if I am wrong). 'Natural evil' that is a result of the laws of this universe which you presumably believe God designed is incompatible with an all-loving, all-good, and all-powerful being. If there were an omni-god, one should not expect egregious disasters like this to happen and a planet that is quite hostile to our being. Instead, we see exactly what one would expect if there were no omni-God: natural disasters and a planet that is hostile to our being.

What reasons can an omni-God possibly have for allowing such a disaster like this and more importantly, creating the laws of the universe that dictate natural disasters will happen [I'm not really interested in why he allowed this to happen, but rather why he created the universe in such a manner.]? If you or I were to be omni-powerful and create the a universe, I would wager that this would not be the result from our work. Might it be the case that "God is mysterious," "God's ways are higher than ours," or "There must be some 'greater good' that can only be attained through natural diasters?" All of these defenses fail quite profoundly.

If you believe all three of these things, you should either be happy that our region was devastated (because God is good and logically only good actions would flow from God or otherwise be dictated by him) or descend into utter moral skepticism where you could not say that any action is bad because it might be part of God's plan. Perhaps, to remain consistent, theists should say "Well, this might be part of God's plan, so I can't be angry here and this is needed for my salvation or some other end." This, though, fails when considering an all-good being and an all-powerful being because God could have such 'greater goods' without causing billions of dollars in property damage and killing people.

Melanie, if God were good, this disaster would have never happened in the first place.

Marcy, if God really were with us all, don't you think that this should have never happened in the first place or that he would stop it? If I had a personal relationship with you, loved you, loved humanity, were all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing, designed the universe, etc, I would never have designed the universe in such a manner and if I did for some reason (which would make no sense), I would have stopped this flood. Imagine, by analogy, that there was some sort of superhero in NEPA who can, at a finger snap, magically cause the flood waters to go down and have prevented this flood. God, presumably, can do this and much more. If this superhero were in NEPA and he did nothing to stop the flood, we would consider him/her to be an utter monster...so why not consider God to be a monster, rebuke God, etc? Why make the excuses?

This disaster clearly showed us that faith proved nothing concerning this flood. All of the prayers in the world/this region did nothing to stop this flooding and other natural disasters. What really mattered, though, was the effort of humans, minus any supernatural concerns, to help their neighbors, report the news, build the levees, sandbag, etc.

My 9/11 Remembrance Speech (Read in Harrisburg on 9/11/11)

Pennsylvania Nonbelievers graciously invited me to write a speech for their 9/11 remembrance event and, although I could not personally attend, had someone read my speech. I'm quite thankful and honored that my perspective could be shared and that I was invited to write a speech for the event. While this speech is indeed from an 'atheist perspective,' it is not anti-religious in nature (although some may balk at me calling belief based on a faith position unjustified and some fundamentalists may be upset when I give a realistic interpretation and history of church/state separation); I argue that holding justified true beliefs and caring about church/state separation are not 'atheist issues,' but rather should be of concern for everyone for some very good reasons.

This speech was obviously limited, but if you would like to read more on my views regarding the importance of justified true belief and my philosophical approach of arriving at justified true belief, among other related topics, please read my 20ish page philosophy paper titled "A Defense of Reason" that i wrote for my senior philosophy capstone class.

It was important for me to write a speech that everyone can relate to and that everyone will hopefully 'side with' even if some disagree on some minor points. 9/11 is not just an event for Christians, atheists, or any one group, but rather for everyone to contribute a perspective, reflect, and voice their opinions.

In addition to the below text is a video of the event in which the speech was read:

PAN 9/11 Remembrance Service (pt 1 of 3) from Brian Fields on Vimeo.
My speech starts around 17 minutes.

---

Justified Belief and Church/State Separation in the light of 9/11:

Not just 'atheist issues'

Introduction

Justin Vacula received bachelor's degrees in Psychology and Philosophy from King's College in Pennsylvania and is the co-organizer, spokesperson, and one of the board members of the Northeastern Pennsylvania Freethought Society - a secular discussion and activist group of non-theists. Vacula received a large amount of media attention during and following his 2009 church/state battle in Luzerne County. He has also been featured in a chapter of the book “NEPATIZED! Behind the People and Controversies That Define Us and How Things Can Change” in addition to touring with the book's author. Vacula also maintains a personal website and blog at justinvacula.com discussing philosophy, atheism, and theism among other topics and writes articles as the Scranton Atheism Examiner for Examiner.com.

Speech

One can not deny that beliefs inform our actions. Our beliefs translate into actions that have the ability to inform others' beliefs, harm or help others, and establish our quality of life. While we may not be compelled to fly planes into buildings because of the beliefs we hold, this does not diminish the importance of holding justified beliefs.

Philosopher Jonathan Kvanvig, in his book “The Value of Knowledge and the Pursuit of Understanding,” writes “Without beliefs to guide decisions about what actions to perform, we would be reduced to the position of random selection of actions, hoping that one selected was useful.”

Philosopher Richard Taylor argues that truth is worth seeking because “it saves one from the numberless substitutes that are constantly invented and tirelessly peddled to the simple-minded, usually with stunning success... it saves us from these glittering gems and baubles, promises and dogmas and creeds that are worth no more than the stones under one's feet.”

While it is the case that we can not be “absolutely certain” about beliefs, we can proportion our beliefs with available evidence, argument, and reason in order to hold informed beliefs and make informed decisions in our daily lives.

Faith – belief held without adequate evidence, argument, or reason -- such as the terrorists who flew planes into the Twin Towers had -- as we reflect today, resulted in devastation. Faith is not a reliable means to attaining justified belief and is no good reason to hold a belief. If a belief held because of faith is correct, it was not correct because it was based on faith, but rather was correct for some other reason.

It is easy to see the consequences of faith-based beliefs when thinking about 9/11, but such consequences need not be so grand in order for one to care about holding justified beliefs. If we care about holding justified beliefs, we are far less likely to harm others and ourselves and are far more likely to contribute to humankind, help others, and help ourselves.

Care for evidence and need for justification for beliefs should be everyone's concern in all areas of life rather than simply holding beliefs because of tradition, utility, comfort, or indoctrination. One should not allow certain beliefs – no matter how cherished they may be – to be above criticism or at a different level than others not requiring justification.

If more people cared about holding justified beliefs and proportioning their beliefs to the evidence, we should expect more compassion and a more productive society. Author Sam Harris writes, “I know of no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too desirous of evidence in support of their core beliefs.” This, again, is not just a concern for atheists, but rather should be a concern for everyone.

If, instead of holding faith-based beliefs based on the Koran that inspired the attacks on 9/11 and instead, people were more skeptical about their beliefs, it might have been the case that we would not even be here today holding a 9/11 remembrance event. Even if the terrorist attacks would have happened for some other reason instead of a faith-based belief, this still does not diminish the importance of holding justified beliefs.

Looking into the future, instead of viewing faith as some sort of intellectually virtuous belief, we should be consistent in all areas of life and globally apply skepticism. We surely would not praise a person who had faith in some sort of alleged medical cure that is not backed by any evidence whatsoever

Another issue that is important for many atheists, although it should be important for every American citizen, is the separation of church and state. Many have false impressions of what this phrase, tracing back to Thomas Jefferson in his address to the Danbury Baptists, actually means. Separation of church and state does not only mean, in legal terms, that the government is barred from declaring an official state religion, but rather means that the government should be completely neutral in matters of religion; government should not favor religion over non-religion or favor one religion over another religion. Separation of church and state is important because, in the eyes of the government, all religious beliefs or lack thereof are viewed as equal.

Some Muslims and Christians, and perhaps others, unjustly believe that the United States is a 'Christian nation.' The unsubstantiated belief of the United States as a Christian nation fuels the myth of the 'war with Islam' and it would not be much of a stretch to say that this belief is a threat to national security.

While the majority of people in the United States may be Christians, this does make the United States a 'Christian nation' any more than a majority of Caucasians would make the United States a 'white nation.' One simply needs to read the Treaty of Tripoli, a document unanimously ratified by the United States Congress and signed by president John Adams, to realize that the United States, as the document itself says, “is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

Separation of church and state, whether people realize it or not, is what guarantees freedom of and freedom from religion – and this falsifies the notion that the United States is a 'Christian nation' that is at war with Islam. We best not fan the flames of what are seen to be religious wars, misrepresent the secular character of our nation, or distort history.

It is also the case, because of the idea of the United States as a 'Christian nation,' that non-Christians are viewed as somehow being un-American or even worse, enemies of America trying to destroy the foundations of the county which some believe to be “Christian principles.” The United States, as the Treaty of Tripoli suggests, is not founded on the Christian religion. America, rather, was founded on principles of freedom, liberty, and Enlightenment values.

Further, the 'creator' mentioned in the Declaration of Independence -- which is not a founding document such as the United States Constitution and has no legal standing -- is properly understood as a deistic god, one which created the universe but has no concerned for human affairs. Mentions of 'natural rights' in the documents of the founding fathers are not, as some religious individuals think, references to a Christian or any specific god. Many of our founding fathers were either deistic or non-religious.

John Adams, in “A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” wrote that the original states were “founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretense of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in the favor of the rights of mankind.”

No matter what the founding fathers believed, their intentions was clear; they wanted a separation of church and state and made sure to make no references to God in the United States Constitution, but rather references to religion in the constitution -- that there should be no religious test for public office and that no law should be made respecting an establishment of religion -- separate religion from the government.

The need for holding justified beliefs and the principle of separation of church and state are very important to consider in the wake of the tenth anniversary of 9/11. Immediately following 9/11, and even today, some also believe that all Muslims are terrorists and that all Muslims hate America. These false beliefs have led to violence, discrimination, profiling, and the like. Further failures in critical thinking lead people, even to this day, to levy conspiracy theories suggesting that 9/11 was actually an inside job by the United States government – a position that is not based on reason, argument, or evidence.

It is also the case that atheists – rather than the religious who may privately or publicly rebuke their 'fundamentalists' and 'extremists' -- are the ones who are loudest-speaking against the dangers that result from religion and faith. Those who may call themselves 'religious moderates' ought to speak about these issues and police those of their religions instead of distancing, insisting that the fundamentalists and extremists are of completely different camps, or even saying “they don't follow the true religion.”

We should all agree, even if we disagree on other issues, that holding justified beliefs and defending a separation of church and state is important. These are not 'atheist issues,' but rather should be thought of as issues for all American citizens to care about. Thank you.