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.
- Thomas Nagel, The View From Nowhere

January 30, 2012

"Inoffensive atheist ad challenge" accepted in Pennsylvania

Update:
1:30PM
1/31/12

More information is available on nepafreethought.org and Friendly Atheist.
I still haven't heard back from the person in charge of advertising. I had spoken with him yesterday and sent mock-up/prelim designs. Thanks for the support thusfar! I will update when I get new information.



A perfect storm of events recently happened. Last week, I utilized public transportation in Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania and saw a "God Bless America" scrolling-text message outside of the buses [which is not an advertisement placed there by someone spending money] which are funded -- at the very least -- by county, federal, and state governments [I reported about this on 1/30/12]. This may or may not be unconstitutional or a battle worth fighting in any legal sense, so with the help of my atheist activist friend Carl Silverman and the inspiration of a recent post -- "Really, Really, Really Inoffensive Atheist Billboards" on the Friendly Atheist blog -- written by Richard Wade, I decided to respond to the "God Bless America" message in an effort to 'kill two birds with one stone' or perhaps 'crack a shell' from two different angles by proposing a really, really, really inoffensive atheistic advertisement.

The idea, as seen above -- for the advertisement -- is quite simple, effective, and interesting. In the past few years, atheist billboards -- no matter how inoffensive they may seem -- have been met with utter contempt from theists leading atheists to wonder, "Is the fact that we exist and want to advertise ourselves offensive to theists or is it something else?" In order to test this -- and for science or great justice (whichever you prefer) -- I want to place a king-size (30 inches by 144 inches) advertisement on the same buses which host the "God Bless America" messages with a blue sky/white cloud background with the word "atheists" and the URL for the organization for which I am a co-organizer, spokesperson, podcast host, and board member of: the NEPA Freethought Society.

A message such as this should test the advertising policy of COLTS (County of Lackawanna Transit System) [which happens to be quite vague and dubious], counter the "God Bless America" message, get people talking about atheism, raise awareness for the NEPA Freethought Society, and possibly determine if people will get angry because they saw the word "atheists" and the url for the NEPA Freethought Society.

I am very serious about doing this; this is not just a joke or a mere proposal. I spoke with the person who is in charge of advertising for COLTS, talked about the terms for the advertisement, and now am waiting on a response. Let us, as a community, band together, stand in solidarity, challenge potentially unconstitutional messages, and have some fun while we are at it.

If COLTS rejects the advertisement, they will be face a potential lawsuit. What right does a bus authority have to reject an innocuous inoffensive message when said company receives -- at the very least -- state, county, and federal funding? Even worse, we see, is that the bus authority itself promotes a "God Bless America" message. Shall they show a religious message and reject one from a non-religious group?

If COLTS accepts the advertisement, it's game on! The "God Bless America" message is 'countered,' we get to wait patiently for a response from the religious community, and may get to the bottom of the matter of whether or not the mere existence of atheists promoting themselves with a really, really, really inoffensive message is the problem for theists.

This advertisement [when compared to other cities] is very inexpensive! The king size sign design -- in corex including the production cost of copy and artwork -- costs $110 dollars and the sign itself, in the 1-10 sign range, costs $125 a month. That's only $235 for the first sign! Two signs, including the initial design, would cost a total of $360...and it goes up from there.

I would like to collect donations for this initiative, but don't want to do so until I receive an acceptance letter from the advertising person so that donors can know their money is going to something solid rather than something in question. I will post the acceptance letter, more details about the collection, and more details about the advertising terms when I hear back from the advertising person. The current draft of a plan is that donations collected will go to the sign + design costs and each 'tier' of donations will allow for more signs (If $235 is collected when the collection elapses, one sign will be had and if $360 is collected, two signs will be had....). The rest of the donations collected, after the collection period has elapsed, will be donated to Foundation Beyond Belief (If, say, $300 is collected, one sign will be had and $65 will be donated).

...and you can trust me! I have various officer positions with an secular organization, write for Examiner.com, host a podcast, am active in my local community (and have engaged in a good deal of activism), have spoken/written speeches for/at atheist events, am a member of various secular organizations, and much more. Hemant Mehta also likes this idea and has offered to help in some way. I can and will easily be blackballed if I re-neg (but I, of course, won't).

I will provide any and all updates when they are available. Thanks for your interest! Stay tuned...

Theological Fatalism

I've finally updated my essay dealing the problem of theological fatalism - the contention that free will and an omniscient being, God, are incompatible. Enjoy.

For a more detailed investigation and more discussion of this issue, I highly recommend Dr. David Kyle Johnson's paper -- God, Fatalism, and Temporal Ontology -- published in Religious Studies and his podcasts on this issue at Philosophy and Pop Culture.

Theological Fatalism

County of Lackawanna Transportation System displays "God Bless America" message

I published a new article for Examiner.com titled "County of Lackawanna Transportation System displays "God Bless America" message." Read this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for notifications of new updates.

January 29, 2012

Marywood University Secular Student Alliance

I promised to work to start a secular student group at Marywood University (the school I am now attending for graduate studies). As many of you may or may not know, Marywood University is a Catholic university, so this will be a special challenge of sorts. I have created a Facebook group which all are welcome to join whether they be students or not. Please share the page (and/or this post) in order to garner support and raise awareness of this effort.

From the group's Facebook page:

Mission Statement:

The mission of the Marywood University Secular Student Alliance (MUSSA) is to provide a community for secular individuals* (atheists, agnostics, skeptics, humanists, freethinkers, etc); foster discussion about topics relating to ethics, the separation of church and state, supernatural and paranormal beliefs; work with other local secular groups; and to present a positive and accurate view of secular individuals to the community at large.

Secular individuals are those who do not believe that any supernatural entities exist, but rather are separate from religion and religious belief. In terms of politics/government, those identifying as secularists maintain that governments be neutral in regards to religion; governments should not respect an establishment of religion or be anti-religious.

Why should a group like this exist?:

Marywood University students and staff may be skeptical about a group like this and wonder why secular individuals would want a group at a Catholic university and why a Catholic university should allow such a group to exist. Marywood, according to its mission statement, “roots itself in […] a belief that education empowers people,” “offers students a welcoming and supportive community that encourages men and women of all backgrounds to shape their lives as leaders in service to others,” “challenges students to broaden their understanding of global issues,” “live responsibly in a diverse and interdependent world,” and “respect[s] the value of each human being, for diversity in the context of vibrant community.” Further, its Catholic identity statement notes, “The University welcomes people of all religious and humanistic traditions […] so to as to arrive at truth.”

Secular individuals -- even in a university setting -- are often marginalized, rendered invisible, and stigmatized because of their worldviews. Unfair and damaging stereotypes about secular persons are often perpetuated such as secular persons hate religious people, have no respect for traditions in society, want to ban religion from public life, are immoral and/or completely self-interested, have terrible and lonely lives, do not believe in any gods because of trauma in life, etc. A group like this will provide an outlet for secular individuals and help combat these stereotypes.

What's to come/disclaimer:

This group is not official yet, but documentation will be submitted so that this club can be considered to be official in the next semester.

Flyers, upon approval, will be placed throughout campus to promote this club and find individuals who may be interested in joining.

This group is intended to be an affiliate of the Secular Student Alliance. More information about the Secular Student Alliance can be found at www.secularstudents.org.

- Justin Vacula

January 26, 2012

PA House of Representatives declare 2012 to be "Year of the Bible" [Addendum]



I published an Examiner.com article on this topic with comments from Patrick Elliot of the FFRF. Below is more of a personal opinion piece. Enjoy.

--

To start the new year off with a horrifying 'bang,' those who perhaps may now be properly considered theocrats in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives unanimously approved House Resolution No. 535, a 'noncontroversial resolution,' “[d]eclaring 2012 as the “Year of the Bible” in Pennsylvania. WHEREAS, The Bible, the word of God, has made a unique contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and blessed nation and people.” William Penn -- the founder of Pennsylvania, a champion of religious freedom, and one who faced persecution for his religious beliefs -- would be rolling over in his grave if he had the ability to do so.

The resolution refers to the Bible as “holy scriptures” that “led to the early settlement of our country,” credits “Biblical teachings” for inspiring “concepts of civil government that are contained in our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States,” and notes that “[t]he history of our country clearly illustrates the value of voluntarily applying the teachings of the scriptures in the lives of individuals, families and societies.”

The resolution ends noting, “Renewing our knowledge of and faith in God through holy scripture can strengthen us as a nation and a people therefore be it RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives declare 2012 as the “Year of the Bible” in Pennsylvania in recognition of both the formative influence of the Bible on our Commonwealth and nation and our national need to study and apply the teachings of the holy scriptures.”

This resolution -- unlike other resolutions which attempt to recognize the Bible as an important piece of literature or simply note the influence of the Bible on society – goes leaps and bounds beyond something that might just seem sinister or might just seem to be a potential problem; there are no shades of gray here. The writers of this document clearly 'takes sides' on religion, thus becoming quite entangled with endorsement of religion. What hubris! How can governmental officials possibly use such religious and theologically loaded language while seriously maintaining that this resolution serves a secular purpose applicable to all constituents?

Has the House of Representatives in Pennsylvania forgotten John Adams' words from A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America which note 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?”

One ought to wonder how the Pennsylvania House of Representatives could pass and even author such a resolution when – as it should be quite apparent to many – resolutions that declare 2012 as “The Year of the Koran” in Pennsylvania would not stand a chance in the realm of what would be permissible. How would Pennsylvanians feel if lawmakers noted that teachings found in the Koran can only strengthen us as a nation and as a people? The reaction to lawmakers declaring that people study the Koran and apply its principles to everyday life would be, I would wager, quite alarming. Those who fear the looming threat – whether it be real or imaginary – of Sharia Law in America would be inflamed with passion - and rightfully so. The government of the United States may not acknowledge the Koran as a “holy book” and the “word of God” [or Allah] just as it may not acknowledge the Bible as such regardless of how many people might happen to believe the Bible shaped American society, follow its dictates, or worship a particular supernatural being.

Which 'Biblical principles' should we apply and study, anyway? Shall we follow the wisdom of Leviticus 25 and purchase male or female slaves from foreigners who live among us? How about selling our daughters as slaves as noted in Exodus 21? Shall we revamp our policies regarding war to those mentioned in Deuteronomy 20 and force all of the people in towns we attack to serve us in forced labor if they accept terms of peace and open their gates...or kill every man in the town while keeping women, children, livestock, and “other plunder” for ourselves if towns “refuse to make peace and prepare to fight?”

Perhaps lawmakers won't like these ideas, but will cherry-pick and find only 'good verses' that might be helpful. So be it. Regardless of which verses are chosen or ignored [or perhaps what some might argue as being 'taken out of context' or an uncharitable interpretation of the Bible], Pennsylvania lawmakers should not be stepping into the arena of religion making such profoundly egregious statements calling the Bible “the word of God;” representatives are not elected to make theological statements [regarding the Bible], but rather should be neutral in regards to religion in their governmental capacities.

Many of the core freedoms guaranteed by the United States Constitution are not a product of any faith-based belief or Biblical passage, but rather are products of Enlightenment literature and values. Our Founding Fathers – many whom were deists or atheists – designed a government that was secular in nature.

James Madison, after all, boldly noted, “During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.” Can one seriously maintain that Madison would assent to the Pennsylvania House of Representatives' encouragement for people to “study and apply the teachings of holy scriptures?”

Regardless of what Madison or other Founding Fathers may have believed about Christianity, their intentions were quite clear – the system of government proposed by the Founding Fathers is a secular entity and religion, as far as legal implications are concerned, is a private matter left to the consciences of citizens.

Pennsylvania lawmakers are completely in the wrong to speak of the Bible as “the word of God,” “holy scripture,” and much more. If individuals happen to believe these propositions, so be it, but governmental officials in their official capacities as lawmakers should absolutely not be doing so.

Instead of declaring 2012 as “The Year of the Bible,” why don't lawmakers instead declare 2012 as “The Year of the Treaty of Tripoli?” While the name might be a bit clunky or odd, persons wouldn't have to worry about the government taking sides on religion or advising all Pennsylvanians to study “the word of God.” Lawmakers in Pennsylvania should, instead of looking to the Bible for wisdom and declaring a “national need to study and apply the teachings of holy scriptures,” heed Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli which notes, “[T]he government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

Lawmakers in Pennsylvania have reached a new low and should be utterly ashamed of themselves. One only hopes, although this would also be horrible, that lawmakers did not read this house resolution or every better yet, something – besides the obvious governmental endorsement of religion – is missing from the picture. Members of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives should represent all constituents rather than catering to the religious beliefs of those who regard the Bible as “holy scripture” and “the word of God.” So much for the 'radical secularist attack' on American values...one need only look to the House of Representatives in Pennsylvania to see where the real conflict lies. What a shame.

Some may consider this resolution to be 'inconsequential' or may believe that resolutions like this should not be addressed because larger issues loom. Shall all of what some perceive to be 'inconsequential issues' be left alone? Shall we sit by idly until something really 'consequential' passes after the wall of separation of church and state has been utterly demolished and state representatives or other government officials look to past legislation as a justification to do more harm to the secular character of our nation? Worry not, some say, because some larger issues may exist elsewhere. Nonsense.

Some may feel powerless as an 'average American citizen' and believe that nothing can be done to remedy problematic legislation. Do not despair, though! The secular movement can make quite an impact and ought not resign in the face of such egregious violations. The internet is quite a powerful tool that has been and continues to be a great rebuttal of sorts to those who wish to trample freedoms. Share this post, inform others about this horrendous house resolution, shine the spotlight on the House of Representatives in Pennsylvania, and call for members of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives (especially the authors of this resolution) to answer for their actions. A response from those who authored this resolution and voted in favor of it is drastically needed. Let it be known that secular Americans matter.

PA House of Representatives declare 2012 to be "Year of the Bible"

I published a new article for Examiner.com titled "PA House of Representatives declare 2012 to be "Year of the Bible."" View this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates of new content.

January 21, 2012

Harrisburg bishop: Hitler would love America's public school system

I published a new article for Examiner.com titled "Harrisburg bishop: Hitler would love America's public school system." View this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates of new content.

Rhode Island radio show host attacks atheists, Jessica Ahlquist

I published an article for Examiner.com titled "Rhode Island radio show host attacks atheists, Jessica Ahlquist." View this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates.

Adam Savage to speak at Reason Rally

I published an article for Examiner.com titled "Adam Savage to speak at Reason Rally." View this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates.

Are science and faith in opposition?

I published a new article for Examiner.com titled "Are science and faith in opposition?" in response to a recent news story. View this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates.

Published Letter to the Editor "Marjolies' talk should be a learning experience"

Another of my letters to the editor have been published...this time with more words.

On January 13, I published an article titled "Scranton bishop opposes speaker who encourages women to be politically active." After writing, I submitted letters to the editor to my local newspapers. One was published today (the newspaper selected the title):

Margolies’ talk should be a learning experience


Bishop Joseph Bambera recently has objected to a very accomplished individual – Marjorie Margolies, a former congresswoman and founder/president of Women’s Campaign International – scheduled to speak at the University of Scranton on Jan. 28 in order to empower and educate women (and others) in the field of politics.


Bambera objects because, according to a diocesan release, Margolies has been politically active with pro-choice initiatives.


It is not at all clear, though, that Ms. Margolies will be talking about anything regarding abortion, and there seems to be no evidence or reason suggesting that she will.


The Diocese of Scranton, regardless of how much it might speak about the importance of education, obviously is not interested in dissenting viewpoints and seemingly is only interested in its own perspectives being presented. Is this the sort of education and intellectual honesty that should be lauded?


In a setting of higher learning, opposing viewpoints should be welcomed so that individuals could challenge their own beliefs, keep themselves honest, be exposed to new ideas and evaluate others’ reasons for beliefs. Isn’t this what education is supposed to be about? Not so for Bishop Bambera.


If the Catholic faith and church teachings are so strong and justified, why should the bishop be concerned when someone holding an opposing viewpoint is scheduled to speak (especially when said viewpoint has nothing to do with the content of the speech)?


Shame on the Diocese of Scranton and Bishop Bambera for opposing an accomplished speaker just because she happens to be pro-choice. Catholics and non-Catholics alike should be appalled by Bambera who is following in the footsteps of former Bishop Joseph Martino.


Justin Vacula

Exeter


January 20, 2012

Published Letter to the Editor "Marjolies should be allowed to speak at Scranton U."

On January 13, I published an article titled "Scranton bishop opposes speaker who encourages women to be politically active." After writing, I submitted letters to the editor to my local newspapers. One was published today:

Editor:

Bishop Bambera has recently objected to Majorie Marjolies - a former U.S. House of Representatives member - who is scheduled to speak at the University of Scranton in order to empower and educate women (and others) in the field of politics.

Bambera objects because, according to a diocesan release, Marjolies has been politically active with pro-choice initiatives.

The Diocese of Scranton, regardless of how much it may speak about the importance of education, is seemingly only interested in their own perspectives being presented with no opposition.

In a setting of higher learning, opposing viewpoints should be welcomed - save when pseudoscience like intelligent design or other nonsense is being presented as fact in classrooms - so that persons could challenge their own beliefs, keep themselves honest, and be exposed to new ideas.

Persons should be appalled by Bambera who is following in the footsteps of former bishop Martino.

Justin Vacula

Exeter



January 19, 2012

Lou Barletta receives failing grade in SCA's 2011 Congressional Report Card

I authored a new article for Examiner.com titled "Lou Barletta receives failing grade in SCA's 2011 Congressional Report Card." Read this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant notifications of new content.

Design my new banner!

It's time for a new banner on my website!

Instead of designing the banner myself or having one person design the banner, I'd like to invite my readers to create submissions of their own and e-mail them to me (jvacula@nepafreethought.org). I will select my favorite designs, post some runner-up designs and, of course, place my favorite design at the top of my website.

The deadline for submissions is January 26, 2012.
Feel free to submit as many designs as you wish.

Designs must include:
  • "When beautiful unreality holds out its hand, it's better not to lose yourself in blind faith"
  • Justin Vacula's Blog

January 15, 2012

Atheist does not equal 'bad person' - Letter to the Editor

This wonderful letter to the editor was published in today's Times Leader. Thanks, Erin, for submitting this.

Atheist does not equal ‘bad person’


Religion is one topic on which the people of this world are never going to agree. How the world is today, I find myself standing up for atheists more than I should have to. Before I go further, I would like to point out that my religious views are completely irrelevant in this letter. It does not matter if I am Catholic, Jewish, Muslim or even undecided. My opinion on this topic would remain unchanged.


Some people think that just because a person is an atheist, he or she does not have morals. Just because someone does not believe in a superior being does not mean she is not going to do the right thing.


I know very religious people who refrain from doing the wrong thing only because of their constant fear of going to hell. Isn’t the whole point of morals to do the right thing because you know it is right – and not because you know there will be a reward in the end?


Atheists are not bad people. Don’t get me wrong, some will be. But they aren’t bad because they are atheists.

People need to stop judging others by considering what kind of person they might be based entirely on their beliefs. Instead, judge them on their interests and values.


Erin Foertsch

Wright Township




January 13, 2012

Scranton bishop opposes speaker who encourages women to be politically active

I published a new Examiner.com article titled "Scranton bishop opposes speaker who encourages women to be politically active." Read this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates of new content!

January 12, 2012

Tebow 3:16 - God Doesn’t Help Tebow Win


This post is from a guest contributer who wishes to remain anonymous.


This Tebow thing is really getting out of hand. I thought it might have ended when his winning streak ended and the Broncos lost to the Patriots, but in this weekend’s wild card game, it happened again. Tebow threw about a 10 yard pass through dropped coverage that was run 70 yards for a touchdown in the first play of overtime. This meant, given NFL rules, the Steelers wouldn’t even get a possession to try to answer, so the Broncos advanced into the playoffs…to play the Patriots, again.

As you probably know, Tebow is the starting quarterback for the Denver Broncos. They have had a 'string of luck' lately—quite a few comeback, fourth quarter, and overtime wins. Of course, in the NFL, unlikely and quirky wins happen all the time. And when they do, people are usally critical. When teams win by barely beating teams with comebacks after quarters of terrible play, most people aren’t keen on singing your praises. Things, though, are different with Tebow. Why? Because he’s Christian. I mean really REALLY Christian. He was home schooled, so he has really had his religious beliefs beaten into him. He hosts an evangelically motivated website, 'wrote' similarly motivated books and has helped with his father’s missionary work in the Philippines... to help circumcise impoverished children. He also appeared in a pro-life commercial during the 2011 Super Bowl. When Tebow played for the Florida Gators, he wrote Bible verse references in his eye paint. Eye paint messages are not allowed in the NFL, but as a Bronco, Tebow has been regularly seen bowing down in petitionary prayer during games’ crucial moments and in prayers of gratitude right after touchdowns, often pointing up to heaven as he stands up, mouthing the words “thank you.” (This is now known as “Tebowing.”) As a result, many are inclined—without hyperbole—to attribute Bronco winning streaks to divine intervention.

The notion that the Bronco wins are a result of divine intervention has received a lot of attention. Saturday Night Live made fun of the notion the night before the Broncos lost to the Patriots in the regular season. Conan O’Brien reenacted the overtime pass against the Stealers with his peanut players having the hand of Jesus come down and guide the football into the receiver’s hand. ()

But to many—in fact to most—it’s not a joke; people who think that God is involved in Tebow’s wins are not joking and really think God is helping Tebow win. If you have any Christian football fans as Facebook friends, you know what I am talking about. If you watch a game, you will see many signs around the stadium that say “we believe.” Although they may simply have 'faith in their team,' the message seems to be more specific. They believe that Tebow has bestowed God’s favor onto the Broncos and that it will take them to the Super Bowl. Colorado pastor Wayne Hanson -- who has some connections to Tebow’s family -- just came right out and said it, “It’s not luck. Luck isn’t winning 6 games in a row. It’s favor. God’s favor.” Countless media outlets have echoed these thoughts.

The most recent game added to the hype. According to an ABC affiliate, Tebow passed for 316 yards, averaged 31.6 yards per completion, and the ratings for the game peaked at 31.6 at the very moment that Tebow threw the game winning touchdown. A Bible verse that Tebow often painted in his eye black when he was a Gator was (you guessed it) John 3:16. It is often considered the quintessential evangelical Bible verse. This has many seriously wondering whether God had a hand in the game’s stats. Since the NFL bans messages painted in eye black, could God be sending his own message? If so, it worked. “John 3:16,” according to the article, was the number one Google search on Monday, getting more hits than it ever has.

But does Tebow really think that God has a hand in his wins? Many Tebow fans want to deny this and say that he’s just thanking God for his talents while he is “Tebowing,” but it is quite difficult to maintain such a position given the evidence that Tebow gives us. When you always bow down in prayer during crucial moments of the games, and then when things go right you stand up, point to the sky, and say “thank you,” what else could you be doing but asking God for help and then thanking him once you get it? Why would you be thanking God for the chance to play or for your talents, in the most vital moments of the game? Is Tebow ecstatically jumping up and down after beating the Steelers, and then bowing down, thinking to himself “I’m so glad I’m talented. Thank Jesus?” In answer to a question about the Broncos' overtime win over Chicago, Tebow said, "I believe in a big God and special things can happen." Tebow may even believe that a Super Bowl win is preordained by God. "It's not necessarily prophesying, but sometimes you can feel God has a big plan,” he said. Tebow thinks God has a hand in his wins.

Bill O’Reilly, in an interview back in June, asked Tebow, “Do you pray for victory?” Tebow replied,

You know, I think He honestly does care about how we play on the field, more than anything more than win or lose our hearts on the field. On the field I'm trying to play for the glory of God but then also I'm trying to give everything I have and win and compete. And so I think more than just winning or losing, I think He cares about where our hearts are when we're playing.

Well, at least God has his priorities in order. According to Tebow, God cares more about 'Tebow’s heart' when he is playing than whether he wins. But he clearly still cares whether he wins. It’s really hard to deny that Tebow indeed does think God has a hand in his victories.

Even if Tebow doesn’t believe, his teammates do—teammates like Wesley Woodyard. He recounted to Mark Kiszla at the Denver Post Tebow’s message to him.

Tebow came to me and said, 'Don't worry about a thing,' because God has spoken to him." After Woodyard ripped the ball from Chicago's Marion Barber’s hand to prevent him from winning the game, Woodyard believes too. "I gave him a big hug,” said Woodyard, “and told him thank you. God speaks to people to reach other people.

If you want to think that Tebow doesn’t believe that God has a hand in his wins, fine. I’ve said enough about that, but it’s undeniable that a number of people do believe. They think that God is altering the outcome of his games—right down to the number of yards he passes for, to make people Google John 3:16. It’s this issue I want to examine. Is it rational to believe that God intervenes in Tim Tebow’s football games?

The simple answer is a resounding no. In fact, such a belief is about as irrational as you can get. Let’s talk about those “316” stats first.

They are interesting, but not remarkable. From what I can tell, they are accurate. He did throw for 316 yards. But he also completed 10/21 passes. Divide 316 by 10, and you get 31.6. So it’s not really two different independent occurrences of “316” because one derives from the other. But, although the overnight household ratings for the game were 25.9/46, the game did peak at 31.6/46 from 8:00-8:15 PM, ET. Although, Tebow was making his pass around that time, I highly doubt that the ratings spike happened at the moment that Tebow made the pass, as was reported above. It was probably after, when the 'Twitterverse' lit up with 9000 tweets a second, and more people tuned in as a result.

Thinking the “316” coincidences entail divine intervention is thinking at its most uncritical. What are the odds that Tebow would pass for exactly 316? Not that great. Chances the ratings would peak at 31.6 on the same night? Even lower. But, given the number of games that Tebow has played, will play, and the number of stats that are kept in NFL games, it is a guarantee that eventually one of his stats would equal some number that people would find significant. Maybe he could complete 4/16 passes in homage to Philippians 4:16, another bible verse that Tebow has painted in his eye black. (I hadn’t heard anyone claiming 3:16 is his favorite verse until now.) And it wouldn’t be too hard to find another instance of those numbers hiding in the slew of stats for any given game.

The fallacy involved in this kind of thinking involves anomaly hunting and a selection bias—we look for something remarkable, remember what we found, and forget all the unremarkable things we passed over. Sure, 316 yards is interesting…but how many stats, over all the games, have been completely insignificant? We don’t remember those. Just like when a psychic medium gets something right, and we remember it—and we forget the twenty other things that she just said that have nothing to do with anything. Keep looking and eventually you’ll find what you want.

But something else is very wrong with the “316 yards—it’s a sign!” mentality. Think about what it really entails. To get Tebow to throw exactly 316 yards, God would have had to control every minute detail of the game. Anyone going anywhere they are not supposed to, catching a throw they are not supposed to catch, or where they are not supposed to catch it, would ruin it all. The idea that God reaches down from heaven to make sure that Tebow’s pass gets to the receiver to win the game is already ridiculous enough—so ridiculous that when Conan portrays it literally on his show, we laugh out loud. But to think that God is directing every little aspect of a football game to make sure that Tebow gets 316 yards in exactly 10 throws [so when it’s divided by 10 the numbers don’t change] is just so stupid.

Not to mention—is God making everyone turn their TV on so that he gets exactly the 31.6 rating that he wants? Whatever happened to free will?

Many religious people will argue that, indeed, God does control every aspect of the game—and that he did make you turn on your TV. Why? Because God controls everything. So the idea that God has a hand in Tebow’s wins, and the 316 stats, is not crazy at all. Instead, it simply follows logically from the fact that God exists, they suggest.

But this is a highly controversial and widely criticized view of God and his nature. The idea that God predestines everything that occurs (including who goes to heaven, and who goes to hell) was argued for by John Calvin. But the idea runs afoul of many bible verses, not to mention many Christian ideas—like the fact that we are morally responsible for what we do. If everything I do, I do merely because God preordained—predetermined—that I would do it, then how is anything I do my fault? I can’t do anything but what God ordained I would do and the reason I do it ultimately has nothing to do with me or my decisions. If God makes me do it, then I’m not morally responsible. We usually wouldn’t think that you are morally responsible if you had to do something because someone had a gun pointed at your head. How much more so if God is literally controlling you like a puppet?

This idea also runs afoul of a common Christian apologetic move. The problem of evil asks how God could exist when there is so much evil in the world. A common reply is that the evil in the world is not the work of God—it is our work. We cause evil by our own free choices. Not all evil is the result of our free choices—no one has ever caused a tornado. So this solution doesn’t completely answer the problem. But it can’t solve anything if all our actions are predetermined by God. We can’t cause any evil if God makes us do what we do—if he does all our causing for us. Certainly, you can’t shift any blame off of God, onto us, for the evil in the world, if God predetermines all of it to happen.

Now, of course, football players’ performances are most often morally neutral—they aren’t out there causing good or evil. But here’s the thing. Christians maintain that when God doesn’t intervene in our free will decisions to prevent evil, like 9/11, it’s because free will is important. It must be protected and preserved. What, then, are we to make of the suggestion that God interferes with the free will of football players to make sure that a particular team wins? We must think it is absurd. If preventing 9/11 is not more important than preserving free will, certainly a football win is not either—no, not even a Tebow win. Not even if the win is a means by which God draws attention to himself or a bible verse.

To make things worse, the kind of reasoning that people are employing to conclude that God is helping Tebow is the worst kind. In a nutshell, it is an appeal to ignorance. An appeal to ignorance occurs when one interjects a supernatural explanation for something that they can’t explain. This happens when people conclude that Criss Angel is magic because they can’t explain how he does his tricks. [Criss Angel is actually very honest about the fact that he is an illusionist, and has no supernatural powers—just like all magicians don’t.] But what’s more likely: no natural explanation or that you simply can’t think of one?

But it’s worse than that because the events for which people are invoking supernatural explanations don’t even need supernatural explanations. They are not miraculous; they are not violations of the natural order. If one of Tebow’s passes had disappeared in mid-air and then just appeared in the arms of a receiver in the end zone—then you might have something. But fourth quarter comebacks and overtime wins happen all the time—not to mention 316 yard stats. (Just Google it and see how many other 316 yard passing games you can find.)

Concluding that Tebow threw 316 yards because God made him is like concluding that prime empty spot in a parking lot is a result of divine intervention. Sure, it’s possible that God could have caused whoever parked there to cut their shopping trip to Wal-Mart short so they would leave and vacate a spot just when you needed it. But what’s more likely—divine intervention or the simple fact that someone with a good spot left Wal-Mart of their own accord around the time that you arrived? It is more likely that God intervened in the game to make sure that Tebow threw exactly 316 yards or that, just like hundreds of quarterbacks before him, Tebow simply threw for 316 yards?

The fact that people are really taking this seriously, I’m afraid, only reveals the childishness of religious thinking. Non-religious people are not drawing this conclusion. And, to be fair, not all religious people are either. (Rev. Alan Rundick denies it, but also thinks that Tebow denies it too. But there is a particular brand of religious person who takes this seriously and I think this demonstrates the kind of childish thinking that is involved in this kind of religion. Children think magicians are magic, adults know they are illusionists. Children are fascinated by history channel specials on Nostradamus, adults know that it’s all retrodiction. Children can be fascinated by the fact that Tebow threw for 316 yards, but adults should not.

But I also think this reveals the kind of god that these people worship. For the god that they revere, given the kind of things they think he does, it makes perfect sense to them that God would make Tebow throw for 316 yards. It also probably makes sense to them that God would free up a spot in the parking lot for them. Nietzsche spoke of such a god in his work, “The Antichrist.”

what shall we do when [believers]… use the finger of God to convert their miser ably commonplace and huggermugger existence into a miracle of grace, a providence and an experience of salvation? The most modest exercise of the intellect, not to say of decency, should certainly be enough to convince these interpreters of the perfect childishness and unworthiness of such a misuse of the divine digital dexterity. However small our piety, if we ever encountered a god who always cured us of a cold in the head at just the right time, or got us into our carriage at the very instant heavy rain began to fall, he would seem so absurd a god that he’d have to be abolished even if he existed. God as a domestic ser vant, as a letter carrier, as an almanac-manat bottom, he is a mere name for the stupidest sort of chance....

If he were writing today, Nietzsche would have also mentioned football games.

A god who simply stands in for explanations of chance occurrences—especially chance occurrences that are bound to happen eventually anyway—is a childish invention, unworthy of worship. Christians who invoke God to explain Tebow’s success, who think that God even cares about football games, much less intervenes in them, do themselves and their entire religion a disservice. They trivialize God, trivialize religious belief, and they revitalize Tebow’s success.


P.S. Some have suggested that Tebow, and those like him,don’t pray to win—they just pray for everyone in the game to be safe and injury-free. There are three things to say about this: (1) He’s not doing that when he is bowing down on the sideline as the kicker lines up for the winning field goal. (2) God’s doing a pretty crappy job of keeping everyone safe, given the rise of concussions in football and the average survival rate of NFL players. (3) Praying for everyone in the game to be safe makes just about as much sense as praying for a win. Players are injured by the actions of others players. To keep everyone safe, God would have to make all the players be just where he wanted them to be—in other words, we would have to interfere with their free will. And, as we discussed above, he doesn’t do that. Unless you are asking God to not snap the cables of the overhead camera and make it fall on someone for shits and giggles, praying for safety at a football game doesn’t make much sense.

January 10, 2012

If God does not exist, are humans nothing more than 'just animals?'



William Lane Craig -- in premise one of his moral argument -- argues, "If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties to not exist." He reasons that morality simply is illusory -- and quotes some philosophers who happen to agree -- if God does not exist. " Additionally, Craig argues that absent God, we are 'nothing more than animals.' Outside of the debating and academic world, concerns like this aren't so uncommon amongst lay theists. Are these conclusions warranted? Is God needed to 'redeem' us from such a 'lowly status?'




Some theists believe that since humans are made in the 'image of God,' humans are 'special.' If God doesn't exist -- according to some theists -- all sorts of sentiments seem to follow: humans are 'nothing more than animals,' there are no good reasons to behave well, and there is no meaning to life. Despite atheists insisting that this is simply not the case (and very often explaining why it is not suggesting that secular paths to morality and meaning are viable ones), some theists keep repeating these statements. Although the burden of proof is on the theist to demonstrate why these sentiments would follow if God did not exist, atheists can answer these charges regardless.

Persons who say 'we are nothing more than animals' are taking an overly simplistic view of humans. For example, humans, unlike many animals, can produce art, write, ponder abstract ideas, ponder the consequences of their actions, identify with those who are different, and so much more – thus 'setting us apart' from animals without the need to appeal to a supernatural being.

Why should a 'special status' of being made in 'God's image' give us the only reason to behave well? As an atheist, I can look at other humans and come to a realization that many people have similar wants and desires as I do, value their own lives, want to be given opportunities to succeed, and would like to live a life with as little suffering as possible, etc. Not believing in an afterlife with God, additionally, it seems, gives atheists even more reasons [or enough reasons] to behave well because this is the only life that we believe exists. Perhaps we should simply not treat our neighbors how we would not want to be treated? We need not appeal to a 'special status' of being made in 'God's image' in order to make sense of morality.

Many theists believe that the purpose of this life is to serve God and follow God's will. Without God, some think, life is utterly pointless and not worth living. Contrary to this sentiment, I have never heard a story of a former theist who committed suicide because he/she realized there were no good reasons to believe in God. While this obviously doesn't falsify this claim, it is quite telling and should produce great cognitive dissonance in the minds of theists because persons believe life is worth living even if there are no good reasons to believe God exists. Meaning can be found on a subjective level based on what persons derive enjoyment from or find important. If “life's objective,” as the song "Sensorium" from Epica says, “is to make it meaningful,” persons can do so this quite easily by finding something they enjoy and/or find important. We need not appeal to a god for this.

While it can be very easy and attractive to 'send our hopes to the skies' and simply point to God or the conclusions of many religions in order to answer some metaphysical questions or confer some 'special status' upon ourselves instead of engaging in deep reflection about various topics, such “glittering gems, baubles, promises, dogmas, and creeds,” as philosopher Richard Taylor explains, “are worth no more than the stones under one's feet.” Taylor says, “Many persons spend their lives in a sandcastle, a daydream, in which every answer to every metaphysical question decorates its many mansions. […] They find, in other words, a comfort born of ignorance.”

Humans can make sense of meaning and morality while identifying that which shows we are not 'just another animal' instead of looking to an alleged god for some quick and easy answers which ultimately fail [regardless of whether God exists].

January 9, 2012

NEPA Freethought Society Podcast: Episode 6 [with Sean Faircloth]

Episode 6 of the NEPA Freethought Society Podcast -- "Interview with Sean Faircloth author of Attack of the Theocrats!" -- is now available in audio-only and video format.

Podcast Topics:

This special event podcast features an interview with Sean Faircloth author of "Attack of the Theocrats!" and Director of Strategy and Policy for the Richard Dawkins Foundation.

Cast:

  • Justin Vacula (Podcast Host, Co-Organizer, Spokesperson, and a Board Member)
  • Rodney Collins (Founder, Organizer, and Chairman of the Board)
  • Jason G (Producer, Web Director, Board Member)
If you wish to ask a question or comment on this podcast please send your email to Justin Vacula at jvacula@nepafreethought.org

Related Links:


January 7, 2012

Rick Santorum: Same-sex marriage leads to polygamy, any marriage

I published a new article for Examiner.com titled "Rick Santorum: Same-sex marriage leads to polygamy, any marriage." Read this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates.

NEPA Freethought Society Podcast: Episode 5

NEPA Freethought Society Podcast hosts: Justin Vacula & Rodney Collins

Episode 5, "Curious Bible Verses/Remembering Christopher Hitchens," of the NEPA Freethought Society Podcast is now available in audio and video! (Link here)

Show Notes:

Podcast Topics:

For the December 2011 podcast Justin and Rodney discuss some of the curious passages from the Bible. Also, we unfortunately lost Christopher Hitchens in December. Justin and Rodney share some thoughts and personal stories of Mr. Hitchens.

Please note that this show was actually recorded the day before our debate which was already released as a special podcast. So some of the content covered may be a little out of order if you've been following along with our releases.

Cast:

  • Justin Vacula (Podcast Host, Co-Organizer, Spokesperson, and a Board Member)
  • Rodney Collins (Founder, Organizer, and Chairman of the Board)
  • Jason G (Producer, Web Director, Board Member)

If you wish to ask a question or comment on this podcast please send your email to Justin Vacula at jvacula@nepafreethought.org


Music Used (podcast version only):

January 5, 2012

Sean Faircloth to appear on live episode of NEPA Freethought Society Podcast



Join us for a very special live episode of the NEPA Freethought Society Podcast with Sean Faircloth this Friday (1/6/12) at 6PM EST.

Tune in here:
www.nepafreethought.org/news/livestream

Viewer questions will be answered at the end of the show.

----

From my Examiner.com article "Sean Faircloth discusses secularism and his new book "Attack of the Theocrats!"

Sean Faircloth – former Executive Director of the Secular Coalition for America and current Director of Strategy and Policy for the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science – has authored a book titled “Attack of the Theocrats!: How the Religious Right Harms Us All – and What We Can Do About It” detailing a vision of a secular America, a comprehensive strategy to re-secularize America, the harm of religious fundamentalism in law and much more.

Watch Sean Faircloth speak at the Florida Regional Atheist Meet:
"Atheism: A New Strategy"


----

The NEPA Freethought Society Podcast is the official podcast of the NEPA Freethought Society - a group of atheists, secularists, agnostics, freethinkers, etc in Northeastern Pennsylvania.

More information about the NEPA Freethought Society including upcoming events and previous podcasts can be found at www.nepafreethought.org.

A remastered/high-quality version of this podcast will be on the NEPA Freethought Society's website soon after the live stream.

RSVP on the Facebook event.

Tim Minchin and Freedom From Religion Foundation to appear at Reason Rally

I published a new article on Examiner.com titled "Tim Minchin and Freedom From Religion Foundation to appear at Reason Rally." Read this article and other content on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates.

...and see you at the Reason Rally!

January 1, 2012

A philosophical analysis of Cee Lo Green's "All religion's true" lyric


Cee Lo Green, a popular mainstream singer, in one of the last events of 2011, sang John Lennon's classic song "Imagine," but with a twist. Instead of singing, "Nothing to kill or die for and no religion too," Cee Lo Green sang "Nothing to kill or due for and all religion's true." Many commenters have objected to Cee Lo Green's turning a secular song into a 'pro-religion song' and have argued that John Lennon's song should not be lyrically modified at all. There is little discussion, though, surrounding the philosophical implications of Cee Lo Green's lyrical change. What, exactly, does Cee Lo Green mean when he says "all religion's true?" Can a position like this be defended?

A main and very fundamental principle of logic is what philosophers call the law of contradiction. A proposition, according to this law, can not be both true and not true. If one's reasoning is riddled with a contradiction, the reasoning breaks down because something can not be both true and not true. A clock, for example, can not be both on a wall and not on a wall. This is quite evident and, whether we know it or not, we use this principle on a daily basis.

Enter religious claims. Some religions posit very particular claims about the fundamental nature of the universe typically asserting that their religious claims have truth value and claims from other religions are wrong. Many Roman Catholics believe that God created the universe, sent his son Jesus to die on the cross, and believe that there is only one god who is tripartite in nature (the father, the son, and the Holy Spirit). Muslims, on the other hand, believe that there is no god but Allah and Mohammad is his prophet. Hindus typically believe in all sorts of gods such as Shiva and Ganesh while not positing the existence of Allah and the Christian god. All of these assertions can't possibly all be true.

Some, while realizing this, will assert that everyone is 'sort of getting it right' and seem to be pointing to some sort of 'fundamental essence,' 'likeness of the ultimate,' etc. Religious ideas, some believe, might just be representations and attempts of humans at trying to understand a supernatural reality.

The problem, though, is that while there might be some truth to religious claims, everyone's also getting it wrong. Additionally, people who adhere to particular religious claims aren't claiming that they are sort of right, but rather are often making very specific claims about the nature of the universe. How can we even know that people are 'sort of getting it right' and that there is a supernatural reality to begin with?

Might Cee Lo Green and some others perhaps argue that 'truth' -- as far as some religious claims are concerned -- does not involve some sort of knowledge about a supernatural entity being correct, but rather truth means that some religious teachings are either beneficial or 'truth-ful' in the lives of many?

This approach, though, commits the informal logical fallacy of equivocation in which a term is being used in two different contexts. Saying religious claims are true in the matter of "Does the Christian god exist?" is much different than saying that religious claims are true in the matter of 'There are some great moral lessons to be learned.' This approach can't possibly work. [Read more on this here.]

In some communications on Twitter, Cee Lo Green reveals his real stance -- responding to a commenter who typed "The whole point of that lyric is that religion causes harm. If "all religion's true" it would be a pretty bleak place -- typing "I meant all faith or belief is valid...that's all."

Putting religion aside for a moment, it should be quite obvious that not all "faith or belief is valid." Considering matter-of-fact issues about an objective reality, all beliefs can't possibly be true. Suppose Jill believes the North Star is the brightest star in the sky and Jack believes the North Star is not the brightest star in the sky. Both can't possibly be right.

While ideas of 'everyone is right' might seem quite appealing, non-confrontational, inclusive, accepting of others, etc., the more honest route, it seems, is to not advocate for positions in which one is forced to accept contradictions. All religions can't possibly be true - and even if all religious claims were 'sort of true' and aiming at some sort of supernatural reality, how can we even know this? The mere fact that people around the world and throughout history have been talking about supernatural entities that might be similar says nothing about their truth value, but rather might say a great deal about human psychology and attempts to answer questions which we can't know or do not know the answers to by appealing to the supernatural.

Disagreement, as some religious pluralists might believe, constitutes disrespect...so we're best to 'be accepting' by saying that everyone is right -- in some way or another -- when religious beliefs are concerned. This, though, doesn't have to be the case. Honest discussion can be had and ideas, rather than people, can be attacked. We can understand perspectives of those whom we happen to disagree with by having a genuine conversation without being offensive to persons.

Cee Lo Green's ideas of all religions being true and all faith being valid is untenable.

Please Consider Donating

I update this site on a very frequent basis, am passionate about what I do, respond to comments from my readers and engage my audience, am very active beyond the keyboard, and am not in any sort of 'ivory tower.' Unfortunately, blogging is no full-time well-paying position by any means. If you enjoy my work and would like to donate something -- even a dollar that you would never miss -- as a sign of appreciation, I would be very appreciative. Thank you!