Justin Vacula's Blog

Final design for inoffensive bus ads

2012-02-08T14:19:00.005-05:00

Here is the final image [click here for a larger version] for the NEPA Freethought Society's really, really, really inoffensive atheist bus campaign also sponsored by American Atheists [more info to come]!

I am now just waiting on word back from the bus company's board of directors before the ads are created and on buses. Updates will come. Several persons have come forth willing to donate for this ad campaign, but I am still going to wait until everything is good to go until collecting. Thanks for the support thus far.

2/7/12 - Really, Really, Really inoffensive atheist bus ads - some updates

2012-02-06T08:23:00.006-05:00

As many of my old and new readers alike may know, I -- in conjunction with the NEPA Freethought Society - the group for which I am a co-organizer, spokesperson, board member, and podcast host -- have announced plans to launch an original -- as far as I am aware -- ad campaign in Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania that is intentionally really, really, really inoffensive.

Last Monday (1/30/12), I, before announcing the ad campaign online, had contacted Jim Smith -- the advertising contact listed on the bus company's website -- on the telephone asking preliminary questions about placing advertisements on buses. Jim Smith asked me what my design would look like, what message it would contain, and if I can send him a preview image via e-mail. I had asked Jim Smith, when I was talking with him on the telephone, if he could wait a moment so that I could e-mail him [I told him I had the file on my computer and would need to boot it and send it]. Jim Smith told me to send the file later in the day/after I hung up and he would respond.

After the discussion with Jim Smith, I announced my plans on my blog, on the NEPA Freethought Society's website, and Hemant Mehta posted in support of my idea. Several persons approached me [online and in 'real life'] pledging to donate money, expressed excitement with the idea, and have been very supportive in general.

American Atheists is now, additionally, in support of the idea! [More details to come.]

I'm very much ready to go with this so that this ad proposal can become a reality! ...but we just have to wait for confirmation from the bus company.

I got the following message today from Jim Smith:

"Justin I Gave The Ad Info To My Supervisor On Friday –It Is Being Review,
As Soon As I Here Back, I Will E-Mail Or Call You."

"Inoffensive atheist ad challenge" accepted in Pennsylvania

2012-01-30T23:31:00.010-05:00

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 Transportation 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

2012-01-30T13:35:00.003-05:00

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

2012-01-30T11:06:00.002-05:00

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.

Marywood University Secular Student Alliance

2012-01-29T20:55:00.004-05:00

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

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

2012-01-26T12:39:00.005-05:00

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"

2012-01-26T12:38:00.002-05:00

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.

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

2012-01-21T18:05:00.002-05:00

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

2012-01-21T15:23:00.001-05:00

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

2012-01-21T15:16:00.002-05:00

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?

2012-01-21T15:13:00.003-05:00

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"

2012-01-21T15:09:00.002-05:00

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

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

2012-01-20T12:29:00.003-05:00

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

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

2012-01-19T18:38:00.004-05:00

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!

2012-01-19T16:06:00.002-05:00

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

This picture (click here)

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

2012-01-15T10:21:00.001-05:00

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

Scranton bishop opposes speaker who encourages women to be politically active

2012-01-13T13:29:00.002-05:00

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!

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

2012-01-12T14:13:00.005-05:00

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.

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

2012-01-10T12:28:00.006-05:00

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].

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

2012-01-09T14:30:00.002-05:00

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

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

2012-01-07T13:09:00.004-05:00

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

2012-01-07T10:14:00.002-05:00

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):

Artist: XTC
Song: Dear God

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

2012-01-05T15:43:00.003-05:00

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

2012-01-05T11:17:00.001-05:00

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!

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

2012-01-01T16:28:00.010-05:00

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.

"Debunked Science" admits of openness, progress

2011-12-30T09:35:00.006-05:00

Persons who try to discredit science or otherwise are quite skeptical of the scientific enterprise frequently voice the following claim almost immediately betraying a very fundamental misunderstanding:

You can't trust scientific findings! Scientists got it wrong so much in the past and what we think was a fact constantly gets overturned! Everything we know today is going to turn out to be wrong in the future. Look at [example x theory or idea]. People thought that was true, but now we know it is not. You can't trust scientists.

A recent NPR article titled "Debunked Science: Studies Take Heat in 2011" discusses three non-findings/retractions that lead the author to write, "2011 may go down as the year of the retraction in the scientific world." Additionally, the author noted that "non-discoveries" of 2011 (a genetic basis for longevity, a new form of life, an explanation for autism, and a link between a virus and chronic fatigue syndrome) "have something in common: They involved findings that both scientists and the public badly wanted to believe."

I am worried that the above "you can't trust science" sentiment may be reinforced by this article and am quite dismayed that the author did not dedicate some space to detail why people should not be dismayed (especially when the general public, it seems, does not know too much about science as a discipline, but rather looks at science as a technology mill).

Interestingly, some of what the author mentions to provide evidence to support his claim of "2011 may go down as the year of retraction in the scientific world" is not even a study or otherwise was not even accepted by the scientific community.

The caption for the article's picture of Mono Lake in California where some thought a new form of bacterial life was found says, "The report was immediately greeted with skepticism from the scientific community." Later in the article, regarding the possible new form of life, the author notes, "[M]any experts in field were unimpressed by NASA's event [the press conference announcing the finding]."

One of the researchers, Wolfe-Simon, said the following, according to a Wired.com article:

“These data show that we are getting substitution across the board,” Wolfe-Simon says. “This microbe, if we are correct, has solved the challenge of being alive in a different way.”

“It isn’t about arsenic, and it isn’t about Mono Lake,” says Wolfe-Simon. “There’s something fundamental about understanding the flexibility of life. Any life, a microbe, a tree, you grind it up and it’s going to be CHNOPS. But we have a single sample of life. You can’t look for what you don’t know.”

Let's suppose, though, that the scientists did 'jump the gun' and claimed that a new form of life was found and that their statements were later retracted. Would this lead to the conclusion that scientists' findings can't be trusted or that this is somehow a flaw in the scientific process? Peer review is a very important part of the scientific process. Findings of researchers are 'out in the open' so that others can critique the data and possibly lead to either retractions of published findings. This should be considered a great strength of science and should give people good reasons to, in many cases, assent to experts' opinions/findings.

The level of openness in science is much different than, say, what goes on in the minds of young earth creationists (YEC's) or '9/11 truthers' in many cases. In science, when good reasons are presented that should lead one to reject a certain idea, the idea is rejected and scientists are willing to reject the idea. When YEC's are shown that the earth is indeed older than 10,000 years, the YEC's attempt to 'save their theories' by making ad-hoc (unfalsifiable and unjustified) moves such as "Well, the universe was made with the appearance of age" or "God just wants our faith to be tested." Truthers claim that evidence against their ideas are just part of a conspiracy, a distraction from the real conspiracy, or a fabrication of the mass media/government because that is what "they" "want you to believe."

Some theists, additionally, when faced with the problem of natural evil (the argument that belief in an omni-good god is irrational because of the amount of egregious suffering in the universe caused by natural occurrences), seem to employ similar thinking. Instead of giving up belief in an omni-good god when presented with reason, argument, and evidence (vis-a-vis the problem of natural evil), some theists assert "for all we know, there could be a reason that God has, but we just don't know it." What is the reason for this? How can we know that "there could be a reason" and why don't these people apply such skepticism globally? (For all we know, perhaps God requires earthquakes for the salvation of children, so we shouldn't say earthquakes are a bad thing...)

If your belief is immune to being shown false, it seems, that belief ought to be rendered irrational. A wise man, as David Hume once said, proportions his belief to the evidence. When the evidence is greatly weighed against a certain idea, the wise course of action would be to discard the idea instead of making ad-hoc moves to 'save your theory.' Falsifiability, as we see, is a very important characteristic of a good [scientific] explanation while unfalsifiable beliefs, no matter what evidence might come up tomorrow, would not be discarded.

The whole notion of willingness to discard ideas when good reason, argument, and evidence is presented shows a great level of intellectual honesty and should lead people to trust findings generated from such a 'system.' Each retraction in science should lead a person to conclude that, even though they don't have the expertise to thoroughly analyze findings, a great deal of justified trust can be placed in the findings of scientists. After all, other experts are out there who do analyze the findings to 'wipe away' possible biases of the researchers reporting the results or flaws in studies.

Science, contrary to what the NPR article seems to assert, isn't about what scientists want to believe, but rather is concerned with what is true or otherwise can be justifiably asserted given the current evidence. Unfortunately, some reporting by media outlets [and not the scientists themselves] can 'jump the gun' and individual readers will believe a certain proposition when the scientists themselves are not even making a claim.

While it may be the case [or some may even argue is the case] that much of what we believe now about the universe will be either overturned or greatly amended in the future, this should not lead us to despair, but rather should assure us that scientists are honest and willing to amend or overturn findings provided new evidence comes in. This is what we call progress.

Dr. David Kyle Johnson talks about his book "Inception and Philosophy" at Google

2011-12-29T17:52:00.002-05:00

Information on the book from the Amazon.com page:

Is the top still spinning? Was it all a dream? In the world of Christopher Nolan's four-time Academy Award-winning movie, people can share one another's dreams and alter their beliefs and thoughts. Inception is a metaphysical heist film that raises more questions than it answers: Can we know what is real? Can you be held morally responsible for what you do in dreams? What is the nature of dreams, and what do they tell us about the boundaries of "self" and "other"? From Plato to Aristotle and from Descartes to Hume, Inception and Philosophy draws from important philosophical minds to shed new light on the movie's captivating themes, including the one that everyone talks about: did the top fall down (and does it even matter)?
Explores the movie's key questions and themes, including how we can tell if we're dreaming or awake, how to make sense of a paradox, and whether or not inception is possible
Gives new insights into the nature of free will, time, dreams, and the unconscious mind
Discusses different interpretations of the film, and whether or not philosophy can help shed light on which is the "right one"
Deepens your understanding of the movie's multi-layered plot and dream-infiltrating characters, including Dom Cobb, Arthur, Mal, Ariadne, Eames, Saito, and Yusuf
An essential companion for every dedicated Inception fan, this book will enrich your experience of the Inception universe and its complex dreamscape.

Buy his book!

Catholics claim regulations on charities threaten religious freedom

2011-12-29T17:35:00.002-05:00

I published a new article on Examiner.com titled "Catholics claim regulations on charities threaten religious freedom." Read this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates of new content.

Philosopher Dr. William Irwin: "Idea that God intervenes in NFL games is absurd"

2011-12-29T17:33:00.003-05:00

I published a new article on Examiner.com titled "Philosopher Dr. William Irwin: "Idea that God intervenes in NFL games is absurd." Read this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates of new content.

On effective atheist activism and responding to PZ Myers' critique of Massimo Pigliucci

2011-12-28T11:58:00.005-05:00

Quite an uproar of sorts has stirred in the previous week or so. Chris Stedman published an article titled "The Problem with Atheist Activism," Greta Christina published a blog post titled "What are the Goals of the Atheist Movement?" and Massimo Pilgiucci, responding to the two mentioned articles/posts, authored a blog post titled "The goals of atheist activism." PZ Myers, writing about all three pieces authored a blog post titled "We're Meddlesome" mainly responding to Pigliucci's blog post.

PZ Myers claims that Pigliucci fails in reading comprehension and makes various assumptions about Pigliucci's blog post that misrepresent what Pigliucci is saying and commits several errors. I'll comment on both PZ Myers' and Pigliucci's posts and end talking about what seems to be the false dichotomy in the minds of the 'in-your-face-no-holds-barred-be-offensive-as-possible-with-no-regard-for-the-individual' style that some atheist activists hold; some of these people seem to believe that if this is not the method, all other methods are failures and people are bending over backwards to accommodate religious persons. It is quite possible to "be respectful and still tell it straight" while being effective, uncompromising, critical of ideas, professional, rational, etc.

In his "The goals of atheist activism" post, Pigliucci notes that Greta Christina says a "good cop/bad cop strategy" works, but Christina provides no evidence for why this is the case. Pigliucci also notes that atheists are doing a disservice to themselves and others when they compare themselves to "blacks or gays, as it is an insult to people who have experienced real discrimination. [...] atheists are not being made to sit at the back of buses, hanged from trees, put in prison, or denied voting rights qua atheist." He also adds that the "bad cops" "rarely went around insulting the other side, they were simply vocal about their rights."

Massimo notes four goals that he believes the atheist movement and community should have and pursue: separation of church and state, acceptance of atheism, combating dogmatism, and elimination (or at least reduction) of irrationalism. Pigliucci notes that "none of the above goals is defined in terms of abolition of religion per se. The real targets are irrationalism and dogmatism, of which various religious beliefs are only examples, and only to a variety of degrees."

PZ writes, in his post, "Everyone loves to sit back and carp about the New Atheists, because they're the most prominent subset of the atheist movement, the ones getting the most press, and the ones getting the most criticism from theists...so of course the armchair philosophers have to take a whack, too. [...] Pigliucci ought to have his philosophy-er, hoity-toity-er, rational-er atheism to peddle." Right from the gate, PZ makes various unwarranted assumptions. He assumes that Pigliucci is 'carping' because New Atheists are in the limelight. What is the reason for this?

PZ writes, "I assume that some people just like to meddle - they just can't bear the thought that someone else's strategy, even if it is working toward a similar goal, is actually working and making progress, so they've got to announce their dissatisfaction and tinker. It's only natural, I suppose, that a growing movement would find itself surrounded by not only opponents, but also obnoxious kibitzers." Pigliucci's tone, style, goals, etc. are, of course, different than others' tone, style, goals, etc. and he's merely noting some disagreements he has with others. So what?

PZ writes, "Pigliucci [...] just assumes that his goals are everyone else's goals, and therefore he's justified in complaining about how we're doing everything wrong." When is one ever unjustified in 'complaining' is one disagrees with the methods of someone else?

PZ then responds to Pigliucci's question as to how Greta Christina knows that the "good cop/bad cop" strategy works and PZ says that we can know this strategy works because atheism is booming. This, though, is a huge non-sequitur. How can one particular strategy account for the boom in atheism? While this strategy has certainly 'drawn some people in,' it does not account for several other factors that account for the rise in atheism such as more internet communities popping up, the rise of the religious right (!), atheists simply making groups because they want a social network and/or want to share their ideas with others, various authors (some of which can be called 'New Atheists') publishing books, etc. In short, there is much going on that accounts for the rise in atheism, but the "good cop/bad cop strategy" isn't the only strategy that works or otherwise has contributed to the rise in atheism [and perhaps is not even a major factor]. It is also important to note that some are 'drawn away' because of a "good cop/bad cop strategy."

PZ believes that Massimo wrote that atheists aren't allowed to model activism after known successful movements, but this simply isn't the case. Massimo wrote that atheists "really ought not compare themselves to blacks or gays." "Really ought not" is much different than saying "you're not allowed." Additionally, PZ writes, "...the tactic of decrying the struggle against smaller offenses because there are greater problems is a standard suppressive effort to maintain the status quo [...] Pigliucci is making a particular contemptible argument: it's the idea that no injustice should be opposed if there is a greater injustice elsewhere." Pigliucci doesn't argue this.

PZ writes, commenting on Massimo's statement of "the "bad cops" of the civil and gay rights movements rarely went around insulting the other side, they were simply vocal about their own rights," noting "Right. So in the last 50 years or so of history, everyone's approach has been to say nothing but kind words... [...] No one objected to the overt racism of the policeman who turned fire hoses on black crowds... [...] An important part of making racism and sexism and homophobia socially unacceptable has always been labeling and mocking and denigrating the perpetrators of such evils. You don't make progress by pretending that Fred Phelps is a nice guy, and not making him pay the price of public stigma..."

PZ seems to miss Massimo's point here (or the point I at least believe he is making). An articulate and effective case for rights can be made without resorting to being in-your-face and hurling insults. It is all too often, it seems, that atheists use some language filled with personal attacks that are mocking and denigrating toward religious persons...and I don't find this constructive in many cases.

Make some arguments and attack ideas, I believe, but attacking persons doesn't seem to be an effective route. Perhaps, though, insults can be had for very public individuals who are exploiting persons, doing a great deal of harm, or involved with politics such as Pat Robertson, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, Peter Poppoff, etc., but I don't find this constructive when talking about 'religion in general' or addressing 'lay persons' (i.e. the 'common people in the pews).

I take great care to be as charitable as possible on my blog, on the NEPA Freethought Society Podcast, in my Examiner.com articles, in debates I have, and elsewhere. I want people who disagree with me to read what I have to say and I'm simply not interested in attacking individuals or repulsing people. While it's going to be the case that some people may be repulsed no matter how charitable, kind, and free of insults I can be, this simply doesn't justify going all out, being uncharitable, unreasonable, or insulting every religious person I see.

While my goal is not to deconvert religious people (although, of course, that may happen in the progress), I want to put the arguments out there and be effective. I want to get people to think, empower fellow atheists, engage religious believers, share my ideas, and be professional. Of course, there are certainly times when I will joke around, poke fun, and even mock, but those are paired with some legitimate concern and a visible goal.

Of course not all will 'take my approach' and want to be more in-your-face. Some will also believe that hurling insults at religious people is an effective strategy for whatever goals they may have. I have heard, several times, that "religious people can't be reasoned with and are not logical" (which is ridiculous in many cases and certainly isn't a warrant for 'bad behavior'). [And here's my response to this.] So be it. If someone disagrees with someone else's strategy, goals, or methods, it shouldn't be a problem if those concerns are voiced.

Some atheists also believe that "beliefs should be respected" and it is bad form or somehow rude to even question or challenge, no matter how professionally, persons' beliefs. I don't think these positions are tenable and have commented on them in the past at great length. If these people want to voice why they think this way and have different methods or goals than I do, so be it...but I will voice why I think their assumptions are flawed and why people should speak up and be 'out of the closet.'

Like it or not, if the 'atheist movement' is going to be successful (or continue to be successful), individual atheists ought to realize that they are dealing with people and no matter how silly, outlandish, or fallacious the beliefs of some religious people are, these people cherish these ideas and take them very seriously. This, of course, if you know me, doesn't mean that ideas should not be challenged, but rather means that there is a person 'behind' those ideas. Ideas can be attacked, but persons don't have to be. Additionally, disagreement should not be construed as disrespect and individual atheists would do well in communicating this to people whom they disagree with and/or otherwise object to discussions even taking place.

Might 'my method' or style of presentation be 'the best method?' Probably not...but I don't think there is a 'best method' or 'one method' that works. I mainly tackle arguments, make arguments, and tend to come from a more philosophical perspective. Others do other things. So be it. If some have different methods (and especially if some believe that certain methods are problematic), it is okay to voice the criticism and be receptive of it. After all, aren't we supposed to be a skeptical community?

There are many faces and goals in the atheist movement. Many people are talented in some areas while others are not. Individuals can utilize their abilities and be effective in what they do. It is important, though, to discuss, as a community, what our goals should be and how we can work to achieve them. It's also important to offer criticism of those in the movement whom we happen to disagree with on some issues whether we disagree with their methods, tone, manner of presentation, or something else. Voicing criticism, though, should not be considered "meddlesome," but rather should be viewed as offering some advice whether it is considered or not.

Improved audio-only version of my "Does the Christian god exist?" debate with Rev. Marcelle Dotson

2011-12-28T09:33:00.005-05:00

On 12/19/11, I debated Rev. Marcelle Dotson on the topic of "Does the Christian god exist?" in a live, recorded format. The raw video was released immediately following the debate.

An improved audio-only downloadable version of the debate is now available.

Get it here.

This podcast (and other episodes of the NEPA Freethought Society Podcast) are also available on iTunes. You can also subscribe to the podcast's RSS feed.

Is the language of being offended helpful for SOCAS advocates?

2011-12-28T09:13:00.003-05:00

Form, indeed, is important. Recently, I've noticed that some advocates of separation of church and state have been noting that religious displays are offensive in their arguments for why religious displays are unconstitutional. I don't find this sort of language to be helpful.

When I articulate why a complete separation of church and state (SOCAS) is important, argue for why separation of church and state is not just an 'atheist issue,' talk about the harm and falsehood of the 'Christian nation myth,' and why separation of church and state and secularism [government neutrality toward matters of religion] are not 'anti-religion,' I primarily focus on ideas of equality, freedom of and from religion, and the negative consequences of a governmental entity endorsing religion.

Some persons who seemingly have not really considered the issue of SOCAS or otherwise have read the reasons why people advocate for a total SOCAS tend to cast the issue in terms of offense and atheists 'waging war' with religion on a legal level. When I filed a complaint against a courthouse nativity scene in 2009 and was successful, many of my detractors told me that if I didn't like the nativity scene, I should simply just look away from it and seemingly believed that me being offended by the display was a basis for my complaint.

Here are some of these comments from my detractors:

When responding to these comments, I have argued that me being offended (if this even were the case...and it is not) was not a basis for my complaint or why I advocate for a total SOCAS. If offense were the basis for a complaint, it seems, the complaint would be quite unreasonable and would be unsuccessful. After all, some Muslims were offended (and still are) by Salman Rushdie's book "The Satanic Verses," but this does not constitute a reason for a legal complaint. I don't think that the language of being offended is helpful at all and seems to be quite unsuccessful because it fuels the myth of 'atheists file complaints because they are offended.'

The Freedom From Religion Foundation and American Atheists -- in some cases -- have noted that persons were offended by religious displays in both legal documents and statements to the media. While I am members of both organizations and am generally in favor of most of what they do and how they do it, I am no fan of noting that people are offended by religious displays. Might, though, there be good reasons for this language and might it be required in some cases?

The issue of standing -- the ability to demonstrate that an individual has been harmed in some manner or otherwise has some reason to file suit -- has been a complex one for SOCAS advocates. Those who have attempted to argue that incorporating the pledge of allegiance in public schools with the words "under God," for example, was unconstitutional have been unable, in some cases, to have a trial because plaintiffs were said to have lacked standing. Perhaps the language of offense would have been needed here in order for persons to file suit...or is this a problem with the legal system?

If persons arguing for SOCAS employ the language of being offended when they voice their rationale for filing complaints, defending those who do, or otherwise are simply arguing why SOCAS is important, it seems like the rest of the message is being compromised; arguing that one is offended or even a certain percentage of people are does not make the case for SOCAS being important for all or why the government should remain neutral on matters of religion.

Rather than arguing that a religious display may offend some, it seems more helpful to argue why SOCAS should be desired by all. SOCAS advocates might argue (and perhaps should) that it is selfish for people of a certain religious sect to want government favoring their variety of religion because a very large percentage of people 'lose out' and religious freedom is utterly compromised. Does it not seem to be equally selfish or very selfish for non-religious people to argue that certain religious displays should come down because they find them offensive (or merely just argue that they are)?

People like Dan Barker and David Silverman, of course, don't only use the language of being offended in their arguments for SOCAS; they argue on other fronts that seem to be quite successful and appealing for everyone. Why not keep the arguments at that and leave out the language of being offended in order to appeal to everyone and frame SOCAS as an issue for everyone and not just atheists?

As always, feel free to chime in in comments below.

Confidence in science: Faith, fact, or something else?

2011-12-24T10:48:00.006-05:00

A discussion in the New York Times starting with an article published on December 21, 2011 titled "On Flu Strains, Folkies and Faith in Science" prompted readers to ponder whether scientific inquiry and discovery will lead humanity down a smoother road, whether scientific inquiry will produce more good than harm (or vice-versa), whether there should be limits on scientific inquiry, and whether 'faith' in science is the same kind of faith as, say, religious faith.

A follow-up article published on December 23, 2011 titled "Is Confidence in Science as a Source of Progress Based on Faith or Fact?" includes various views on whether, as you might guess, "confidence in science," according to the article, "as a source of human progress is underpinned by fact or faith." The author notes, "Some readers may have missed that the discussion was not about confidence in science as an enterprise, but confidence that benefits would always accrue to society from applications of scientific knowledge."

These topics ought to be interesting to many whether they have a very slim understanding of philosophy, science, and philosophy of science. Unfortunately, though, those with a slim understanding of philosophy, science, and philosophy of science are often confused or missing some major points such as when they think 'faith in science' [this phrase should not even exist, especially amongst those who do have an understanding of science, philosophy, and philosophy of science because the definition of faith, I would wager, is generally 'belief without evidence'] is the same as 'faith in religious ideas.'

Andrew C. Revkin, in the "On Flu Strains, Folkies and Faith in Science" article, seems to put quite a high bar on the word 'prove.' He writes, "I'm a huge fan of science, as is obvious given that I've spent my life studying it and writing about it. I think that more science and science literacy, and fostering a culture of innovation and inquiry, will boost odds of a relatively smooth ride for humanity as our appetite for resources crests. But can I prove that? No." He continues, "...I have confidence that scientific inquiry, as long as it is carried out in a transparent way, will endure as a force for progress - particularly in comparison to the track record for movements in which ideology trumps reason. And, no, I can't prove that."

I'm not sure why the author notes that he "can't prove that" and perhaps am further confused as to why he doesn't continue noting that, from what we have seen so far, scientific inquiry has yielded a tremendous amount of information, discovery, new technology, and so much more that has made human life better. Although, of course, we have also created technology which can kill people at a rate much faster than ever before, it seems evident that the scales are tipped in favor of 'good' and not 'evil' in this case. We're living much longer, we're understanding more about the universe, we're using technology that was once only dreamed of in science fiction, and we have almost eradicated diseases which would regularly kill or make life horrid for many.

While we can't 'prove' what science will yield in the future, we can be very inductively justified in assuming that, on good evidence, that scientific inquiry will make life much better by looking at the current trend...and this isn't faith - or at least the same kind of faith as, say, religious faith like Pete Seeger, in the article, mentions. The author notes, "...Seeger recalled how his father used to prod friends who were scientists in this way: You think that an infinite increase in empirical information is a good thing. Can you prove it? He'd then retort that faith in science is no different than faith in anything else (emphasis mine).

'Faith in science,' if we must use this term, is much different than 'faith in anything else.' As I noted, we are inductively justified in believing that science will continue to be a source of human progress.

When religious claims are concerned, proponents often lack good reason for their claims and can and do often admit that they have no reason to believe, but rather hold faith. Faith, according to some, is a virtue.

"Trust that God has a plan for you," people say.

"My experience thus far has dictated that there is more than meets the eye even though I can't show you this," people say.

That boy over there who recovered from a bacterial infection... just believe that a Mohawk Indian who lived 350 years ago named Kateri Tekakwitha intervened and the doctors, simple regression of the disease, or other naturalistic explanations had nothing to do with it and instead of simply saying "I don't know," jump to the conclusion that there was supernatural intervention.

Additionally, as you might expect, the arguments/reasons for belief in the Christian god are often very problematic and do not 'hold up' to inquiry. "Have faith" is the 'last card' that is often played, even if some incontrovertible evidence came about that showed the belief were false a la Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig [videos in links] who believe that the Holy Spirit has given them reasons to believe via an immediate experience and nothing can serve as a defeater to Christian belief [thus, it seems, making Christian belief unfalsifiable and irrational].

Scientists do not, by any means, operate on "faith" like those of religious sects often do. Consider methodological naturalism -- the assumption scientists make that the natural world is all that exists -- when doing research. Some religious persons might say that this is a faith-based claim. Scientists operate under methodological naturalism because they want to explain the natural world and look for naturalistic explanations [and supernatural explanations do not have good explanatory power, generally are not testable, and are not conservative or fruitful].

We see that 'faith in science,' if we must call it that, is much different than 'faith in religion.'

When I consider belief and what I believe, I think that knowledge is provisional - it is best on the best interpretation of what we know now and could be, of course, wrong in the future or undermined by various skeptical hypotheses. For all I know, I could have been created five minutes ago with pre-programmed memories and holes in my socks or I could be a brain in a vat. I don't believe these things because I have no good reasons to do so. I can't be "100% certain" or 'prove that I am not a brain in a vat,' but belief in the external world, for example, as opposed to the world being an illusion, is justified - and very much so. The word 'prove,' it seems is quite useless in contexts such as these.

Philosopher Jonathan Kvanvig writes, "There is no reason whatsoever to think that believing the truth is always impossible; the best that could be claimed is that there is no guarantee in any given case that we have achieved the state of believing the truth. Perhaps it follows that we should not hope for the chimera of infallibility."

Returning to the article, and moving away from whether 'faith in science' is the same as religious faith, Brad Allenby writes:

There has to be a big dollop of faith: no single person can possibly begin to understand the world we live in from first principles. It is, of course, a rationalistic faith, in that I am fairly confirmed in my belief that, say, 747’s will fly because in fact the vast majority of them do, and frequently. More fundamentally, my faith that 747’s will fly is of a different kind than the traditional religious kind, in that the latter cannot be supported by direct experience, but only by interpretations of direct experience which pull on the faith narrative.

Allenby is indeed "fairly confirmed" in his belief that "747s will fly because in fact the vast majority of them do, and frequently," but I don't see the value of calling this belief faith. This belief can simply be called a justified belief and direct experience is not needed for this sort of belief to be justified. We can assent to the experts, appeal to others' past experiences, and so much more in order to be justified in believing that future 747s will fly.

Steve Fuller writes:

The prospect that scientists have created a lethal strain of avian flu and are on the verge of publishing their technique in the world’s leading scientific journal has reopened the debate over science’s aspiration to ‘universal knowledge’ in two distinct senses: Should science investigate everything, and should its findings be made available to everyone? Doubts on both fronts pertain to the potential evil that might be unleashed, either by will or by accident. That the doubts should center so clearly on evil consequences betrays the theological origins of the concern. From the serpent in the Garden of Eden to the Cartesian demon of modern skepticism, evil is always portrayed as something that simulates good in nearly all respects. Yet knee-jerk moves to censor and otherwise restrict scientific inquiry threaten to compound rather than the remove the evil in question.

The common lingering concern of "Well, what if advances in technology lead to ruin, horror, and misuse" has probably permeated almost every new technological advance that can be used for harm. Despite this, we're quite happy to continue progressing and rightfully so. We're happy to enjoy our smartphones, laptop, new vaccines, and lives generally free of tuberculosis and polio. While technology might be used for 'evil' (and can often be), it is 'up to us' to police.

We often balance the benefits and costs of our actions and can do so regarding technology. For example, I'm quite aware that my privacy has diminished because of my internet use, owning a smartphones, and much more. To completely refrain from taking advantage of modern technology because of concerns of privacy, it seems, is quite silly. If, though, the trade-off were much more in-line with the negative, I might refrain, but I enjoy my technology and don't want to give it up because of what seem to be very minute concerns.

While some 'evil' may and almost certainly will come about because of progress, it seems to be the case that the benefits far outweigh the costs and deciding to stop progress in fear of some negative consequences is more harmful than progressing to begin with.

To be fair, there are, of course, some moral concerns that may come about when considering progress that we should be mindful of. Perhaps it may be for the best, for example, to not produce a technology which can be embedded in someone's skin at birth that would be unremovable and would constantly transmit a GPS signal to a government. Civil liberties concerns, we can see, crop up. We can, though, stop some progress/technology and not all. We can 'sit down' and consider certain issues without abandoning the entire enterprise of progress.

A refreshing comment from Angela Dellaporta on the difference between 'faith in science' and religious faith reads:

Science is intrinsically humble. Any scientific hypothesis must be tested repeatedly, by many different people, before it is believed. If the hypothesis does not meet the standards, then it is not considered to be scientific truth. These high standards make it easy to have faith in scientifically proven facts — though the best scientists will admit that there is always a margin for error, however small. Faith in religion is a very different thing. It is faith in the unprovable, faith in the mystery, faith in the unknown and unknowable. Because of this, humility, rather than stridence, is usually expected in those who have a deep religious faith, too.

While I enjoy this comment, I still find the phrase 'faith in scientifically proven facts' to be useless because it is not faith, but rather warranted belief. Hope not for the chimera of infallibility, for "100% certainty" is a distraction.

Confidence in science is not faith, but it is rather inductively justified. Reject the phrase 'faith in science' and do not allow belief about scientific principles or advancement to be relegated to the same status as religious faith. It is all too often that religious persons try to claim that their 'faith in science' -- which is justified if we must use the term -- is the same as religious faith, but this is simply not the case. Additionally, people argue that a naturalistic world view is simply inadequate and that religious faith is needed. We can be justified in looking to science for progress and answers to questions. Fear not, though, those of you who may be having visions of scientism floating in your heads...science is not the only way to arrive at conclusions, for other disciplines such as philosophy are needed.

For more on the topic of faith, please listen to the second episode of the NEPA Freethought Society Podcast in which I talk about some ideas I presented here and much more.

As always, feel free to add comments and questions below...and don't assume that I'm talking about all religious people or all definitions of faith.

Secular Coalition for America ranks presidential candidates in 2012 scorecard

2011-12-23T12:38:00.002-05:00

I published a new article for Examiner.com titled "Secular Coalition for America ranks presidential candidates in 2012 scorecard." View this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates.

Recorded Video - Debate: Does the Christian god exist? Rev. Marcelle Dotson vs. Justin Vacula

2011-12-19T13:49:00.006-05:00

I debated Rev. Marcelle Dotson of Field of Grace United Methodist Church in Wilkes-Barre on the topic of "Does the Christian god exist?" on December 19, 2011.

The debate was recorded live from "Jason International Studios" in Mountain Top, PA.

The debate is now available as a recorded version for your viewing pleasure. A audio-only podcast will also be available in the near future.

Feel free to comment below, send me e-mail, etc. I'd love to hear from you.

Rev. Dotson's e-mail is mdotson@susumc.org

----

Justin Vacula -- co-organizer, spokesperson, and board member of the NEPA Freethought Society -- graduated from King's College with degrees in Philosophy and Psychology, a distinguished award in Philosophy, and a minor in Professional Writing. He regularly publishes articles for Examiner.com as the 'Scranton Atheism Examiner,' writes for American Atheists' "No God Blog," and publishes posts about “atheism, theism, philosophy, and much more” on his blog at www.justinvacula.com. The NEPA Freethought Society's website can be found at www.nepafreethought.org.

Rev. Marcelle Dotson, pastor of Field of Grace Community of Faith United Methodist Church holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Psychology from Smith College, a Master's of Divinity degree in Theology from Drew University, and a Master of Business Administration from Simmons School of Management. She served as an associate pastor in Manchester and had served the United Methodist Church in Maine. She came to Wilkes-Barre in 2009 to start Field of Grace. United Methodist Church. The website for her church can be found at www.fieldofgraceumc.org.

NEPA Freethought Society Podcast: Episode 4 [Video]

2011-12-18T08:33:00.003-05:00

The video for the NEPA Freethought Society Podcast's fourth episode -- Curious Bible Verses -- is now available on our livestream page.

Upcoming, this Monday is our special episode - I debate Rev. Marcelle Dotson on the topic of "Does the Christian god exist?" at 11AM EST. The event will be streamed live.

LifeWay Christian Bookstores reneges on pledge to Susan G. Komen Foundation

2011-12-16T15:01:00.003-05:00

I published a new article on Examiner.com titled "LifeWay Christian Bookstores reneges on pledge to Susan G. Komen Foundation." Read this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant notifications of new articles.

Christopher Hitchens, no stranger to Scranton, dies at age 62

2011-12-16T10:43:00.003-05:00

I published a new article for Examiner.com titled "Christopher Hitchens, no stranger to Scranton, dies at age 62." Read this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates of new content.

Skeptic blogger responds to chiropractor's threats to sue (podcast)

2011-12-16T08:46:00.009-05:00

I was recently interviewed by Kenny Luck from The Luck Report to discuss the recent controversy surrounding the legal threats I received from a chiropractor's finacee' because of my blogging.

Listen here.

From Kenny Luck's podcast description:

First it’s slander, but really, if it’s written, it’s libel. But when there is nothing libelous about a post, then it's harassment. This is the string of legal reasoning chiropractor Dr. Dan Golaszewski’s fiancée, who for some reason is acting as his PR representative, exhibited toward a blogger who criticized chiropractic.

Afterthoughts on the "Dr. Dan debacle"

2011-12-15T11:45:00.007-05:00

Welome Message From DrDan from Dr. Dan Golaszewski on Vimeo.

Chiropractor Dan Golaszwski's welcome message in which he claims that he has information which can "gain victory over any health condition" including "cancer, heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, asthma, carpal tunnel syndrome, headaches, back pain, sciatica, fibromyaligia, and even weight loss"

My readers, persons on r/skeptic, and readers of Pharyngula have learned that sending legal threats to bloggers does not quell criticism or intimidate bloggers, but rather serves to create more criticism of the person who was initially criticized, illuminates a problem, and makes persons who send baseless legal threats instead of responding to criticism look really, really, really bad.

For those of you who were not paying attention yesterday, I received two baseless legal threats from a finacee' of a chiropractor saying that if I continued authoring criticism of the chiropractor, they would pursue legal action for slander. After this, I received another e-mail claiming I was harassing the chiropractor.

Months ago, I authored an extensive blog post in which I discussed many of the claims this chiropractor was making in his office literature, on his website, and on his radio show (he's quite the public figure who is 'fair game' for fair criticism).

This chiropractor, Dan Golaszewski, claims that his “ONLY PRACTICE OBJECTIVE is to eliminate a major interference to the expression of the body's God-given, innate wisdom […] the specific adjustment of vertebral subluxation.”

Dan, in his video embedded above, says that his “mission is to set you free from whatever health struggle you may be dealing with.” He claims that information on his website can help you “gain victory over any health condition you may be suffering from including cancer, heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, asthma, carpal tunnel syndrome, headaches, back pain, sciatica, fibromyalgia, and even weight loss.”

Additionally, on his radio show -- at least in his April 30 episode -- Dan Golaszewski warns people about 'toxic medications' because they can make the body a “toxic reservoir” and also says that vaccines, flu shots, and fluoride contain toxins that should be avoided. A disclaimer, though... Dan says he is not telling anyone to stop taking their medications. Mixed messages are the order of the day, it seems.

… and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

In the age of the internet, it's quite difficult to 'lie low' and avoid criticism – especially when persons make extraordinary claims, do not provide extraordinary evidence, and the science simply doesn't 'agree' with Dan.

Sending legal threats to people who criticize claims is not an intellectually honest way to deal with criticism – especially when the legal threats are baseless...and the story kept changing. First, the contention was that I was slandering Dan (when it could, if anything, be libel) and then the charge was that I was harassing [and the fiancee' said she had no problem with me expressing my ideas].

Those who have websites and radio shows should expect to receive criticism and should not complain when criticism arrives. Ignore it or respond to it, I suppose, but don't send legal threats. Oddly enough, Dan is quite happy to attack 'mainstream medicine,' but, apparently, people who criticize his own positions are out of order.

If there were merit to Dan's claims about health, he should not fear criticism, I would think, but rather be open to conversation and respond to claims. He made no effort to my knowledge to respond to the content of my criticism and neither did his fiancee'. All that was mustered were baseless legal threats which seemingly served the purpose of intimidating.

Dan's fiancee' said that he wasn't interested in debate...which is quite awkward because he welcomes anyone to call in his radio show and also welcomes e-mail. Perhaps, though, he only wants people to call in who agree with him or are not critical of his ideas? Perhaps criticism from skeptics is too much? Not all people, of course, want to debate or are good at debating, but refusal to even comment and/or respond to criticism seems quite odd coming from a radio show host who makes a living, to my knowledge, mainly on his claims relating to health. It is also quite strange that she says she wasn't interested in conversation but responded to my e-mail that responded to her e-mail.

---

Update:

Local author and blogger Kenny Luck has commented on this issue. If you happen to take Luck's 'challenge' and call Dan's radio show, please 'attack his ideas' and be respectful.

Don't make yourself look bad by being discourteous. Have an honest and productive discussion.

Pardon me, but when you are a public figure—with a weekly radio program and a public practice that provides services to the community—it’s not out-of-line to engage in open discourse. But “Dr. Dan” wants it both ways: he insists on the right to publicly recommend dubious medical treatments (he is against the vaccination of children, infuses religion into his practice, etc.) but threatens legal action against those who question him.

I encourage the public to become more informed about chiropractic, and call into Golaszewski’s radio show. Ask him—as a public figure and medical practitioner—why he refuses to talk to skeptics. After all, no one here is making personal attacks or libelous claims. Contrary to what the future Mrs. Golaszewski’s skewed understanding is of what constitutes “libel” or “slander.”

Call Dr. Dan Golaszewski on his radio show this Saturday and ask him to defend his religiously-infused medical claims. His show, "Maximize Your Health," airs on WILK-FM every Saturday from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. Call the show toll-free at 1.800.437.0098.

Additional note: For those not in Pennsylvania, 570-883-0098 is the number to call. You can also send a question to Dr. Dan here.

The radio show streams live online at www.wilknewsradio.com

PZ Myers weighs in on Dr. Dan debacle

2011-12-14T16:11:00.002-05:00

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/12/14/dr-dan-golaszewski-is-a-quack/

December 14, 2011 at 2:27 pm PZ Myers
Once again, it’s time to call out a chiropractor. Not only is Dr Dan practicing a phony pretense of medicine, chiropractic, but he’s full of woo in other ways, too: his business is “Aligning spines and lifestyles with God’s ultimate intentions”, and he happily muddles together chiropractic mythology with his religious baloney — he believes that vertebral subluxion “results in a lessening of the body’s God-given, innate-ability to express its maximum health potential.” Chiropractors are awful enough, but chiropractors who actually babble about “subluxions”…run away. Run away very fast.
But here’s what prompts me to single this goon out today: in response to criticisms, he is threatening lawsuits. What is it with these woomeisters? Christopher Maloney, Burzynski, it’s a sure sign that you’re dealing with a delusional dingleberry when their reflex response to any criticism is to go running to the lawyers or start harrassing people’s employers to silence those who dare to question their methods (I’ve been hearing similar things about Chris Stedman’s lackeys lately, which doesn’t surprise me). I guess it comes with the territory: if you’re a purveyor of quackery or woo, you’re also likely to be chickenshit.

Chiropractor's fiancee' threatens me with legal action - Another e-mail

2011-12-14T11:50:00.005-05:00

People who claim I am harassing them when I am not harassing them make me a very sad panda.

After my previous post -- Chiropractor's fiancee' threatens me with legal action -- was released, I sent the post to the person threatening legal action. If you didn't read it, please read it before continuing because this post won't make sense.

*
*
*

Here is the newest e-mail:

My issue is not about your freedom of speech. You can write whatever you wish to write about; that of course is your right as an American. The issue I have is you throwing it in our face and repeatedly attempting to make contact. Write whatever you wish. Posting a link directly onto his Facebook, e-mailing him,friend requesting him, calling into his radio show after you've been repeatedly ignored is harassment. We wish to have nothing to do with you. Write whatever you'd like to write, but please do not attempt to make contact . We ignored you initially hoping you would get the hint. There will be no debate. Your free to write whatever it is you would like to express; but please do not attempt to make contact. He nor I wish to engage in further conversation with you.

The claim of "throwing it in our face and repeatedly making contact" is baseless. She claims that "Posting a link directly onto his Facebook, e-mailing him, friend requesting him, calling into his radio show after you've been repeatedly ignored is harassment."

Here are the facts: Dr. Dan has a weekly radio show and asks people to send him e-mails and call in with any questions. I called the show one time and sent him an e-mail with my blog post critiquing him (at the time, there was only one).

I never posted a link directly on his Facebook - and I could not because the friend request never went through due to Dr. Dan blocking me. The friend request on Facebook was days ago and months after I was on the radio show one time and sent an e-mail one time. One can hardly claim harassment for a friend request, calling in a public radio show one time, and sending one e-mail.

Her timeline is way off; she claims that I called the radio show after being ignored and this is simply not true. Regardless, Dr. Dan has a radio show that invites callers on the air. I could understand if she claimed harassment after I called his office multiple times, contacted him on the internet, found his cell and/or phone number and kept calling, but this is simply not the case.

Even if I did repeatedly call in the radio show and send many e-mails, how does this constitute harassment when Dr. Dan is inviting people to call in his radio show and send e-mails. Dr. Dan never responded to my initial blog post with a "I don't want to talk to you message" and I was never asked to stop contacting him [although I only ever called his radio show once].

Further, how does ignoring someone somehow levy the message of "I don't want to be contacted and if you continue to contact, it is harassment?" I receive all sorts of e-mail and comments from people I might not want to talk to or respond to. They are free to continue sending e-mail and making comments and this is not harassment nor does my failure to respond constitute a message of "leave me alone and stop harassing me."

It is also quite strange that the threat went from potentially pursuing a charge of slander to harassment when the first e-mail never said anything about harassment. It's also interesting that she would respond to the e-mail I sent her with the blog post and continue to have a conversation with me if she didn't want to be contacted. I could understand, perhaps, if the first e-mail said something like, "I don't want you to contact me or Dr. Dan anymore" and that was it, but this simply is not the case.

Dr. Dan's fiancee' has no grounds whatsoever for charging me with harassment, slander, or libel...and since she's now apparently fine with me writing what I wish, I'm going to continue doing so. I would have liked for Dr. Dan (or his fiancee') to respond to the content my posts and show me why I am mistaken, but that has not happened. I even welcomed Dr. Dan to respond to the content of my posts.

Chiropractor's fiancee' threatens me with legal action

2011-12-14T09:37:00.009-05:00

For those of you who do not know me, I am a skeptical blogger who has been writing since September of 2009. I mainly focus on topics, as my blog header indicates, dealing with atheism, theism, and philosophy.

This year, I've started writing about the claims a local chiropractor named Dr. Dan Golaszewski makes because I follow many science blogs and noted that Dr. Dan is injecting theological claims into his practice. My first post on Dr. Dan was on June 16 followed by an Examiner.com article on December 10 [with comments from Dr. Steve Novella] and most recently on December 13.

As is typically the case on my blog, my intention was to examine his claims and see if they had any merit (as I did). I did not, in any way, misrepresent his position or pull claims out of the sky, but rather took information from his radio show, his website, and from literature in his office. Despite this, the chiropracter's fiancee' sent me an e-mail last night at 8:08 PM:

... The reason I am e-mailing you is to request that you leave Dan and his practice alone. He will not be engaging in any debate or discussion with you, Kenny Luck, or affiliates. Your requests for answers aren't stemming from a genuine interest in Chiropractic, wellness, or healthcare; But rather a place of wanting to disprove. You seem like a very intelligent man and I respect you and your views. Please respect his. Dan is not forcing care or his beliefs on anyone. If a patient or potential patient does not agree with chiropractic; they leave, it's very simple. If the slanderous posts do not stop; He will be taking legal action. Many thanks for your understanding.

I was quite alarmed to read this because my treatment of Dr. Dan's claims has been more than charitable, I e-mailed him the initial blog post welcoming comments, and made sure that I took claims directly from him instead of simply pulling ideas out of the sky.

As a blogger and a writer, I have the freedom to write about what I want and who I want as long as I am not making false claims that may damage persons' reputations. I have, of course, freedom of speech as a United States citizen. I've responded to the claims of many people including Dr. Oz, William Lane Craig, John Haught, Bill Donohue, Rick Perry, Michael Voris, and many more. I have never received any threats of legal action from them and did not expect to.

The internet is an open forum in which people can share their ideas and, when doing so in a fair manner, should not fear legal action or otherwise a 'chilling effect' which should stop or threaten to stop persons from expressing their opinions and responding to others' opinions.

Dr. Dan has a radio show and a website in which he is more than happy to express his opinions and I, likewise, have a blog, an Examiner.com page, and a podcast in which I am happy to express my opinions. If we happen to disagree, we should be able to talk about our disagreement without threat of legal action. Dr. Dan, if he would like, is more than welcome to respond to any of my blog posts or spoken words, but he has not done so to my knowledge.

Returning to the e-mail...

Dr. Dan's fiancee' asks me to leave Dan and his practice alone. She can request this all she wants, but I'm not going to stop writing about what I want to write about. I want to respond to Dr. Dan's claims and express what I think about them. I have every right to do so.

She claims that I am genuinely not interested in chiropractic, wellness, or healthcare and notes that I am only interested in disproving. This claim has no merit and even if it were true, it would not matter. I started to write about Dr. Dan, anyway, precisely because I was interested in the claims he was making and decided to take some time to investigate his claims. After some research, I found many of the claims he made were dubious and had little to no merit, so I authored my findings in order to share with my readers.

She wants me to "respect" Dr. Dan's views and notes that he is not "forcing beliefs" on anyone. I don't see why I should be morally compelled or otherwise to "respect views." Views have no cognition and can not be offended. Further, disagreement is not disrespect. In the 'wide world of the internet,' claims are made and claims are responded to. If one wants 'beliefs respected,' one should probably not share his/her beliefs with the general public. In posts on Dr. Dan, I have identified claims that Dr. Dan has made and have responded to them. How is this 'disrespect?'

I'm not quite sure what 'forcing beliefs' means and how this is applicable. Regardless of whether Dr. Dan is forcing beliefs or not, I can and should respond to the claims he is making if I desire to do so. I write about many, many, many topics on this blog and am, in no way, 'singling out' Dr. Dan as a big target of this blog, but rather have authored two blog posts and an Examiner.com article dealing with Dr. Dan. If Dr. Dan wants to put his ideas in the public sphere, he should expect for his ideas to be critiqued; it should be no surprise when persons are responding to his claims. He is, after all, a public figure.

Additionally, I am not, in any way, forcing people to stop going to Dr. Dan's office, reading what he has to say, listening to his radio show, etc. I am merely responding to his claims and offering my take.

She notes that if people do not "agree with chiropractic" they leave [the office]. So be it. I, in fact, visited Dr. Dan's office during a free trial period, "did not agree," stayed for the spinal examination, and left. I went to find more information and further investigate the claims that were made. Indeed, no one is forced to stay in his office or assent to the claims Dr. Dan is presenting...and no one is forced to read my writing or assent to the claims I am making. Like Dr. Dan, I am presenting information for listeners/readers and the 'decision' is 'on them.' Persons have the ability to 'make up their own minds.' Welcome, Dr. Dan, to the internet.

The biggest claim, as you might image, is that I am slandering Dr. Dan in my posts. In a written format, there is no such thing as slander, but rather there may or may not be libel. In my posts, though, there is no libel. I take claims from Dr. Dan's radio show, website, and office literature and respond to them. I am not, in any way, slandering Dr. Dan nor am I libeling Dr. Dan.

In my original post, I wrote:

All of the statements I made about him and his works are not intended to defame him or cast him as a 'bad guy,' but rather are to critique his beliefs, his work, and his methods. Posting like this is protected free speech. I gave my readers examples and direct quotes from Dr. Dan's website, podcast, and from my visit to his office. I welcome feedback from Dr. Dan.

My criticisms and comments are not even unfounded. In a recent interview I had with Dr. Steve Novella of Yale University, Novella responded to Dr. Dan's claims. I, of course, am not a medical doctor, but Dr. Novella is. Here is some text from my Examiner.com article with comments from Dr. Novella:

Dr. Steve Novella -- clinical neurologist, Director of General Neurology at Yale University School of Medicine and host of The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe podcast -- commenting specifically for this article, says that Golaszewski is “blurring the lines between medicine and faith healing” and explains that the sublaxation theory Golaszewski endorses "is pseudoscience, has not been demonstrated to exist, has no validity and is part of a pre-scientific superstitious belief system that has long ago been eclipsed by understanding of anatomy and physiology.”
Golaszewski, in the April 30, 2011 episode of his radio show, says that people should ask what they can do naturally to get off their "toxic medications" and notes that vaccines, flu shots and fluoride contain toxins that should be avoided. Golaszewski also says that “medications will not create a healthier body, but rather will create a sicker body” while also saying that people should continue taking medications and listen to their doctors. Dr. Novella notes that Golaszewski “wants to have it both ways and be protected from consequences.”
Dr. Novella says that “everything is a toxin at some dose, but the substances in vaccines are in small doses, safe, do not cause health problems and are studied extensively. There's no health risk at all. [Golaszewski] is scaring people without scientific backing.” Fluoride,” Dr. Novella notes, “ has been studied, makes people healthier, reduces cavities and poses no health risk at the level given.”
Golaszewski claims that “we were created for at least 80 years of incredible health and happiness” and also claims that “[o]ur bodies were created in perfect harmony and to sustain a state of balance, function, and healing” Dr. Novella says that this is “not based on anything” and says, “Prior to science-based medicine, we lived into our 40s and lived physically miserable lives. We now live to 80 because of science-based medicine.”
Dr. Novella explains, “Practitioners of 'alternative medicine' think they have the secrets, but they've made up superstitious nonsense. There is no secret information. If [Golaszewski] had actual knowledge of or demonstrated sublaxations, everyone would be doing it, but they are not because the evidence is against it.”

Dr. Dan and his fiancee' have no basis whatsoever to sue me for slander. As I blogger and an American citizen, if have the right to write about whatever I want and express my opinion. If persons happen to disagree with me or I happen to disagree with them, we can write about our disagreement.

As always, I encourage readers to share my content and am happy when they do.
I encourage my readers to share this post, my previous posts about Dr. Dan, and author their own criticisms of Dr. Dan's claims. Let Dr. Dan know that it is inappropriate to threaten legal action when people are sharing their opinions on the internet. If Dr. Dan can make claims, so can we.

My original blog post on Dr. Dan:
http://www.justinvacula.com/2011/06/my-skeptical-adventure-with.html

My Examiner.com article on Dr. Dan with comments from Dr. Steve Novella:
http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-scranton/dr-steve-novella-chiropractor-dan-golaszewski-practices-pseudoscience

Additionally, Kenny Luck was mentioned in the e-mail. Here is his post on Dr. Dan:
http://www.theluckreport.com/2011/12/chiropractic-quackery-dr-dan.html

Thanks.

Update:

I received another e-mail from Dr. Dan's fiancee', this time alleging that I am harassing Dr. Dan:
http://www.justinvacula.com/2011/12/chiropractors-fiance-threatens-me-with_14.html

William Lane Craig: Atheists lack justification for ethical treatment of animals

2011-12-13T11:34:00.004-05:00

I published a new article for Examiner.com titled "William Lane Craig: Atheists lack justification for ethical treatment of animals." Read this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates of new content.

Local chiropractor Dan Goleszweski runs away from criticism

2011-12-13T08:45:00.007-05:00

Power Chiropractic: Aligning spines and lifestyles with God's ultimate intentions -

The POWER that MADE the made HEALS the body!

A few months ago, a friend of mine -- author Kenny Luck -- drew my attention to a local chiropractor named Dan Goleszweski of "Power Chiropractic" who claims to "align spines and lifestyles with God's ultimate intentions." I found this claim quite interesting and rightly wondered what God had to do with medicine and why a person calling himself Dr. Dan would be injecting God into his practice.

Delving deeper into Dr. Dan, I discovered some other suspect claims and phrases he makes and uses such as "The power that made the body, heals the body" (this is on his store-front), misalignment [of the spine] results in a lessening of the body's God-given, innate ability to express its maximum health potential, and our bodies were "created for at least 80 years of incredible health and happiness." Obviously, if one reasons from a false premise, there's a very good chance that their conclusion is false.

Instead of simply 'throwing Dr. Dan under the bus,' I visited his office for a free spinal examination during his free trial period and collected information directly from his office from my visit. My ideas did not change for the positive because I noticed a tremendous amount of propaganda in his office including huge containers called 'Drug Free Baskets' in which prescription drug bottles (and perhaps pills) are placed. This is very bothersome.

While I obviously have a problem with theology informing Dr. Dan's beliefs about health instead of science-based medicine informing his beliefs, the bigger problem, though, is his message that is on his radio show and in his office... Dr. Dan talks about how medicines can make your body a "toxic reservoir" and, in the long term, can make you sicker. This information is extremely dangerous and some in his audience may forgo medicine. Not so fast, though! Dr. Dan also tells you that you shouldn't go off your medications and that you should listen to your doctor. The mixed messages, we see, reign supreme.

I called Dr. Dan's radio show months ago and asked a very simple question - "What does God have to do with medicine?" Dr. Dan, instead of answering the question and defending his ideas, if I recall correctly, said something to the accord of "This is just what I believe" and amazingly said that God isn't a big part of his practice. He also, if I recall correctly, said that one doesn't have to say that God is what he refers to as God - you can call it something else. My time on the radio show wasn't long at all and, while I was off the air, Dr. Dan said he was happy to answer questions and that persons should e-mail him if he had any. I then e-mailed Dr. Dan my extensive blog post responding to his claims and asked for some feedback and clarification. I got nothing.

About a week ago, I discovered that Dr. Dan had the following to say on his Facebook profile concerning vaccines:

"You will have an opportunity to get a dosage of toxins and heavy metals at your local church! Apparently, God didn't create our bodies to ward off the flu virus thus building a stronger immune system over time...this is sad. The flu isn't caused from lack of vaccinations, it develops wherever there is a weak immune system...what are you doing this holiday season to keep your immune system at its best?"

This post was quite unconscionable and warranted a response. Again, we hear the 'toxin gambit' of seemingly scaring people into not getting vaccinated or using medications and God-talk that has no merit. How can we possibly even know, even if a god exists, that God "didn't create our bodies to ward off the flu virus thus building a stronger immune system over time?" Additionally, the flu doesn't develop only when there is a weak immune system - healthy people can get the flu.

I sent a friend request to Dr. Dan on Facebook so that I could have an open conservation with him and respond to some of his posts. I was promptly blocked by Dr. Dan. He didn't accept my friend request and I didn't even send him a message over Facebook.

I then published an Examiner.com article with comments from Dr. Steve Novella of Yale University who responded to Dr. Dan's claims. Kenny Luck reposted the article on his own wall, posted it on Dr. Dan's wall, and was promptly blocked by Dr. Dan.

I wonder...

If Dr. Dan claims that he is willing to respond to criticism via e-mail on his radio show, why doesn't he actually follow up on his promise. If Dr. Dan believes that there is efficacy to his statements and beliefs about health [and God], shouldn't he be willing and happy to respond without resorting to ignoring fair criticism and blocking his detractors on social networking especially when he says that he will respond to criticism.

The criticism, it seems, is just too much for Dr. Dan. He is well-aware of my blog post and my Examiner.com article. He's been called out and his questionable claims have been highlighted. Ignoring the criticism, though, isn't going to make it go away. Google results of his name show my criticisms on the front page right next to his website. Perhaps he will respond at some point in the future...or not.

Update: I authored this post early in the morning in order to post it in the afternoon. Kenny Luck, as I mentioned earlier, wrote a blog post about Dr. Dan in the meantime.

Justin Vacula vs. Marcelle Dotson - Online Live Debate: Does the Christian god Exist? - December 19, 2011

2011-12-12T22:55:00.003-05:00

Debate Promo

NEPA Freethought Society Podcast goes live, integrates Skype

2011-12-12T10:04:00.004-05:00

I'm happy to announce that the NEPA Freethought Society Podcast, in addition to being uploaded online as a podcast, will now be streaming live! We've integrated livestream into our website/podcast production featuring live video and a chat box (see here).

We're also adding a Skype component to the podcast so that listeners can call and ask questions and so persons can be interviewed on our show. [We will have Sean Faircloth, author of Attack of the Theocrats! and Director of Strategy and Policy for the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science on a special January episode.]

I will also be debating Rev. Marcelle Dotson of Field of Grace Community of Faith United Methodist Church on December 19. The event was previously only going to be recorded, but it will now be live and will include a question and answer session at the end from the audience.

For more info, please visit our website and watch the following video:

Watch live streaming video from nepafreethought at livestream.com

Local reader argues naturalistic worldview is inadequate

2011-12-11T12:47:00.006-05:00

I authored a letter to the editor titled “Natural Explanation for Flood Prevention” which was a response to a published article in which a local reverend claimed that prayer had something to do with stopping the September flooding in Northeastern Pennsylvania. I argued, in less than 250 words, that naturalistic explanations are better than supernatural explanations and, when we have a perfectly reasonable naturalistic explanation, we ought to reject a supernatural explanation. I quoted Theodore Shick in the letter who said, among other things, “You shouldn't assume the existence of anything that's not needed to explain the phenomena.”

A letter to the editor published on December 11 – approximately a month after mine was published – titled “Life explanation rests with God” argues that my “naturalistic world view is inadequate to explain the bigger questions of life” and “A good hypothesis such as the God of the Bible provides a consistent metaphysical foundation for explaining the important realities and phenomena encountered in life.”

Here is the letter that was published:

Life’s explanation rests with God

In a recent letter, Justin Vacula discussed Occam’s razor, explaining phenomena with the fewest assumptions and using a theory that has the most explanatory power.
I submit that he is wrong about prayer and supernatural intervention. His naturalistic world view is inadequate to explain the bigger questions of life.

The naturalistic atheistic model holds that (a) the universe was created from nothing; (b) life came from non-life; (c) persons came from the impersonal; (d) minds come from the mindless; (e) order from the orderless; (f) reason from the non-rational; (g) morality from the non-moral; (h) information without a sender; (i) code from a nonprogrammer; (j) truth from an accident.
The biblical theistic model holds (a) that the universe was created by a Creator; (b) that life comes from ultimate Life; (c) persons come from the Superpersonal; (d) minds come from the ultimate Mind; (e) order comes from an Orderer; (f) reason comes from a rational Being; (g) morality comes from a moral Person; (h) information comes from a Sender; (i) code comes from a personal Programmer; (j) truth comes from ultimate Truth.

I invite the reader to examine both models to see which has the greatest explanatory power. A good hypothesis such as the God of the Bible provides a consistent metaphysical foundation for explaining the important realities and phenomena encountered in life.

(a) God uniquely accounts for the physical universe’s beginning; (b) God uniquely accounts for the ordered complexity and the design evident in the universe; (c) God uniquely accounts for the reality of abstract nonphysical realities such as numbers, which are the foundation of mathematics and which are not explainable in terms of physical matter and its processes; (d) God uniquely accounts for the meaning, purpose and significance that human beings sense and yearn for; (e) God uniquely accounts for man’s sense of the design.
Without meaning and purpose, the naturalistic atheistic model leads to angst, despair, dread and ultimate extinction of human beings.

I submit it is better to be “standing on the promises of God” than the idea that everything came from nothing.

James U. Sinclair
Wright Township

The third paragraph of his letter to the editor posits “the naturalistic atheistic model” which the writer says “hold that (a) the universe was created from nothing; (b) life came from non-life; © persons came from the impersonal; (d) minds come from the mindless; (e) order from the orderless; (f) reason from the non-rational; (g) morality from the non-moral; (h) information without a sender; (I) code from a nonprogrammer; (j) truth from an accident.

The phrase “naturalistic atheistic model” should be the first red flag here. The reader uses a certain term and seemingly posits what all naturalists (those who believe that the natural world is all that exists) believe when there is no 'unifying dogma' or 'set beliefs' for atheists or naturalists because there is often disagreement on issues. It is also important to note that not all atheists are naturalists and not all naturalists are atheists. Do all naturalists and atheists believe what the reader posits, are the points even relevant, and are there fundamental misunderstandings taking place?

Contention A, right from the start, is problematic because there is wide disagreement about the origin of the universe. Personally, I do not know where to stand on matters of 'becoming' regarding the universe, but the Big Bang is certainly an adequate model to describe the expansion of the universe and the start of time as we know it.

When someone asks, “What happened before the Big Bang?” I often respond by saying, “If the Big Bang is the start of time as we know it, how can we talk about 'before time?” and, after some further discussion when God is typically invoked, say “If God is uncaused and you use God to explain the universe, why can't I say that the universe was uncaused or there is an unknown cause?” Claiming that God was the cause of the universe when lacking an explanation appears to be what is called the argument from ignorance or the 'god of the gaps' argument – because we lack an explanation, theists believe they are justified in positing God to answer the question. This method of reasoning, of course, is fallacious; just because we happen to lack an explanation does not mean that one can be justified in saying “God did it.” Why not say, “I don't know” and continue research and/or suspend judgment until there is a solid answer?

Naturalists need not posit that “the universe was created from nothing,” but rather can offer other explanations or simply suspend judgment on the matter.

Contention B, I would wager, is something that a vast majority of naturalists (if not almost all of them) would believe, but this is not a problematic assertion. When considering questions of the origins of life, answers are not always clear or well-defined as some (including myself) would like them to be, but this is not a problem once we start considering probability. Consider the vastness of the universe, all of the stars that explode and emit elements, and the age of the universe. Of all the 'chances' that could have lead to life, the probability seems quite high that life, somewhere and somehow, would originate. We, of course, are the lucky ones who happen to be experiencing life today. The Miller/Urey experiments, for those interested, show that life can indeed come from non-life. Additionally, Craig Venter has created synthetic life.

A lack of explanation regarding exactly how life arose from non-life does not justify belief in God, but rather should lead us to pursue further research and not assume that God “had to intervene” or have some part in the process just because we might lack an explanation.

Contention C is interesting because I am not quite sure what it means. The idea of person, as I understand it, is a philosophical concept similar to 'identity' in which we ascribe labels to homo sapiens. Are persons 'coming' from anything? It seems not. Personhood is simply an idea and a label we put on human beings. Perhaps the letter writer will elaborate on this.

Contention D claims that naturalists believe that minds come from the mindless, but there is disagreement regarding theories of mind amongst naturalists; there is not one 'set' idea that naturalists must believe. Some naturalists, for example, are eliminative materialists - those who believe that there is no mind, but only the brain.

Mindedness and consciousness may still have some 'gaps' and it might be the case that there is much understanding that is currently not had, but this, once again, does not allow one to justifiably posit God because we lack an explanation.

Contention E claims that “order comes from the orderless.” What we call 'order' is something we view as having some sort of regularity or 'rhyme and rhythm.' When considering the laws of the universe that are guaranteed regularities that arise from the Big Bang, it's quite easy to understand order under a naturalistic worldview. This “sense of design” that the letter writer later mentions is us, as humans, seeing what might rightly be called 'illusions of design' throughout the universe when, instead of assuming design, we can just say 'regularities.'

Contention F posits that naturalists believe reason comes from the non-rational. While the earliest forms of life almost certainly did not have reasoning abilities like humans have today, we can consider an evolutionary perspective and understand quite easily why reasoning abilities would evolve, be beneficial for survival, and be useful.

Alvin Plantinga famously argues that naturalism is not compatible with evolution because, roughly, evolution is not 'concerned' with justified true beliefs, but rather for survival. This argument, though, seems to miss the mark. Those with good reasoning abilities, in times of early hominids, would be better suited for survival. Holding a justified true belief, for example, [that was the product of good reasoning abilities] would allow one to efficiently and accurately gather water, hunt for food in desirable areas, and so much more. Over time, those with good reasoning abilities would survive and those with bad reasoning abilities would die. Of course, not all 'bad reasoners' would die because some can get lucky and be smart in some areas while not-smart in others.

Contention G posits that naturalists believe that morality comes from the non-moral. Not all naturalists will ascribe to notions of morality and may be moral nihilists. Some naturalists also might argue that morality is relative: it differs from person to person and from culture to culture and therefore there are no moral truths or any standing to make a claim about morality. Personally, I use the term 'morality' as short-hand language to describe many things: what actions would be appropriate and inappropriate in certain situations, what actions should lead us to a better society, how we are to treat others, etc.

On a naturalistic view, morality is very plausible. Just on the topic of humans – and to not elaborate too much on this point – we can look around us and realize that other humans have the same basic needs, wants, values. and desires as us; other persons generally value their own lives and consider living to be much more desirable than not living, want to have meaningful relationships with others, want to be secure, and so much more. Because I generally do not want to experience harm, discomfort, and whatever else might make life undesirable and realize that others are like me, I want to behave in a fashion of respect toward other people and act as a functional member of society.

We need no gods to explain morality. It is odd to claim that morality 'comes' from something other than a product of reasoning and as an evolutionary by-product.

Contentions H and I, I believe, rest on a huge equivocation. The reader states that naturalists believe that information exists without a sender and code exists from a nonprogrammer. The reader doesn't elaborate on this, but I believe I understand what he is saying. Equivocation is an informal logical fallacy that occurs when someone tries to use a word two (or more) times, although with different definitions. The reader, I imagine, is thinking of 'programming' and 'code' relating to DNA and thinks that 'programming' and 'code' can only come from thinking beings. When persons talk of 'programming' and 'code' relating to DNA, they do not mean this in the sense that we usually refer to when speaking of computers. Persons talk of DNA as a code because the basic 'letters' of our genetic 'code' are present throughout us.

Finally, Contention J claims that naturalists believe “truth from an accident.” I am not sure what this means because we can use our reasoning faculties to arrive at truths without ever positing a God who had to establish these truths. Consider, for example, one of the laws of logic known as the law of non-contradiction which posits that something can not be both a and not-a. For example, a clock can not be both on the wall and not on the wall. This appears to be a truth and it is no accident; we understand that a clock can not be both on the wall and not on the wall for very good reasons that need not be explained.

We see that contentions A, B, D, and G are not contentions that all naturalists believe. Contention C appears to deal with a philosophical concept that has nothing to do with whether naturalism is reasonable or not. Regarding contention E, the reader believe that naturalism can't account for order, but this simply isn't the case. Naturalism, despite Plantinga's argument, can account for reason and thus 'dispels' contention F. Contentions H and I are based on equivocations and naturalistic perspectives can explain how the 'genetic code' functions without assuming a god. Naturalists can account for truths without appealing to a supernatural truth-maker, so contention J is 'out.'

Now that we see why the contentions the letter writer proposed are not problematic for naturalists, let's explore why theism can't account for certain phenomena and why the explanation of 'God' is a poor explanation.

The letter writer claims that “God uniquely accounts for the physical universe's beginning. How do we know this and better yet, how can we posit that a specific single god created the universe? Even if we were to admit that the universe has a cause, how are we to leap to a specific cause reason, for there, that the god of the Bible is responsible? For all we know, an all-evil god, a time traveler, a council of gods, or a civilization in a parallel universe could have created the universe. All of these hypotheses, while they may seem unreasonable, seem to me no more reasonable than belief in the god of the Bible. Once again, additionally, if the theist asserts that God was uncaused and an uncaused cause is adequate for explaining the origin of the universe, the atheist can rightly posit, while following this logic that the theist assumes, that an uncaused Big Bang is sufficient to explain the universe – and here we are not appealing to the supernatural and we understand that the Big Bang occurred.

The letter writer claims that “God uniquely accounts for the ordered complexity and the design evident in the universe.” Again, why ought the god of the Bible be more reasonable than other unlikely hypotheses? We don't need God to explain order and what we see as design in the universe because we can appeal to natural laws and understand order. Design is simply an illusion that is better explained with the term regularity; while the universe might seem like some sort of being created it because we see order, we need not assume that a being designed the universe.

The letter writer seemingly appeals to the Transcendental Argument for God (TAG) and writes, “God uniquely accounts for the reality of abstract nonphysical realities such as numbers which are the foundation of mathematics and which are not explainable in terms of physical matter and its processes.” Why does the reader assume that numbers are not explainable by physical processes? Numbers, it seems, are contingent upon humans; if humans did not exist, the concept of numbers would not exist. We use numbers as heuristic tools in order to talk about quantities – and the use of numbers is very useful in our everyday lives. Other “abstract nonphysical realities” such as laws of logic are not the product of human thinking and would remain true if all humans were to suddenly die – and this is so because objective truths are separate from us. “The truth is not concerned about what we think of it.”

Speaking of “abstract nonphysical realities,” I'd like to return to the law of non-contradiction and the idea of contradictions. We understand that reasoning breaks down if there were a contradiction and that those who hold contradictory beliefs are behaving in an irrational fashion. For example, if I tell you that I was working at Bill's Market from 8AM to 3PM and was sleeping at home from 8AM to 3PM, you'd be quite puzzled – and for good reason. I can't be both sleeping at home from 8AM to 3PM and working at Bill's Market from 8AM to 3PM. The law of non-contradiction and the concept of a contradiction might be an “abstract nonphysical reality,” but this can be adequately explained without appealing to God. We can quibble about whether we 'discovered' abstract non-physical entities or whether they are contingent (or something else), but this doesn't allow us to justly posit God as the only answer as to how to account for these things. For more on TAG, please listen to this debate.

The letter writer continues to state that “God uniquely accounts for the meaning, purpose, and significance that human beings sense and yearn for.” God has no monopoly on meaning, purpose, and significance. I dealt with this extensively in this post. I argued that whether or not God exists has no bearing on whether meaning can be found in life.

The letter writer writes, “God uniquely accounts for man's sense of design.” I don't understand how this is the case. It can be the case, though, that we look at the universe and consider it to be magnificent, do not understand how the universe can be like it is (especially in earlier times of humans), and believe, then, fallaciously, that a being must be designed it because it appears to be so complex. We see order and assume that God is responsible for the order. With increased knowledge from science, philosophy, and other disciplines, we understand that this thinking is fallacious and can posit naturalistic explanations instead of appealing to the supernatural.

The reader than makes quite an extravagant claim, “Without meaning and purpose, the naturalistic atheistic model leads to angst, despair, dread, and ultimate extinction of human beings.” This claim has no basis. Many naturalists and atheists, of course, are not wallowing in metaphysical anguish of angst, despair, and dread. How ought the 'naturalistic atheistic model' also lead to ultimate extinction of humans? Regardless, whether or not naturalism and atheism 'led' to dread does not show whether or not belief in naturalism or any supernatural entities is justified. This appears to simply be an argument from utility.

We see that belief in naturalism, the idea that all that exists is the natural world, is must more plausible than belief in God. Even if it is the case that naturalism can't account for some realities, this does not mean that one can suddenly 'inject God' and believe that belief in God is justified because naturalism can't account for a phenomena.

Dr. Steve Novella: Chiropractor Dan Golaszewski practices pseudoscience

2011-12-10T17:37:00.002-05:00

I published an article titled "Dr. Steve Novella: Chiropractor Dan Golaszewski practices pseudoscience." Read this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates.

For a longer treatment on this topic, please read my blog post titled "My Skeptical Adventure with Chiropractic: Taking Dr. Dan Golaszewski to task."

Rick Perry elaborates on "Obama's war on religion"

2011-12-10T11:53:00.001-05:00

I published a new article for Examiner.com titled Rick Perry elaborates on "Obama's war on religion." Read this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates.

For more treatment of one issue presented in this article, please read a previous blog post of mine titled "Catholic Charities and the Victim Card."

Catholic League: Adopt an Atheist campaign is lighthearted and humorous

2011-12-09T16:47:00.001-05:00

I published a new article for Examiner.com titled "Catholic League: Adopt an Atheist campaign is lighthearted and humorous." Read this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates.

Catholic League launches "Adopt an Atheist" campaign

2011-12-09T11:55:00.001-05:00

I published a new article for Examiner.com titled "Catholic League launches "Adopt an Atheist" campaign." Read this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates.

Rick Perry: "As president, I'll end Obama's war on religion"

2011-12-07T16:52:00.002-05:00

I published a new article on Examiner.com titled "Rick Perry: As president, I'll end Obama's war on religion." Read this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates.

NASA's Kepler discoveries cast doubts on theistic belief

2011-12-06T11:56:00.002-05:00

I published a new Examiner.com article titled "NASA's Kepler discoveries cast doubts on theistic belief." Read this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates.

Bishop of Harrisburg attends PA Nonbelievers event [VIDEO]

2011-12-06T09:14:00.002-05:00

The Bishop of Harrisburg, Joseph P. McFadden, recently attended a PA Nonbelievers event in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania answering questions from the audience. I was a special guest for this event and was invited to screen and read questions for the bishop.

I wrote an Examiner.com article for this event right after it happened. More info can be found in the article.

The video of the event is now available.

Enjoy.

William Lane Craig: God shielded animal kingdom from an awareness of pain

2011-12-05T15:36:00.002-05:00

I published a new article on Examiner.com titled "William Lane Craig: God shielded animal kingdom from an awareness of pain." Read this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates.

Local writer believes I am limited by dogma

2011-12-04T10:23:00.005-05:00

In October, I wrote an Examiner.com article and a letter to the editor addressing some comments made by a local reverend who attributes prayer to the stopping of flooding in Northeastern Pennsylvania in September. In short, I argued that we should not accept a supernaturalistic explanation (of prayer stopping the flooding) when we can appeal to a naturalistic explanation (the water ebbed).

In a letter published on December 4 titled "Writer: Dogma limits rationalists," a writer, although he admits that "there appears to be obvious weight to the "natural explanation" I am "limiting [myself] in [my] hypothesis." The writer quotes G.K. Chesterson who notes that he believes miracles "upon human evidences as [he does] in the discovery of America."

A quote like this is quite silly. We have a tremendous amount of evidence to support the discovery of America that is quite recent, confirmed by second-hand sources, and is relatively uncontroversial. Explanations regarding the discovery of America, also, are not supernaturalistic.

The writer continues quoting Chesterton, "Somehow or another an extraordinary idea has arisen that the believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them."

To assume that disbelievers in miracles deny miracles because they have a doctrine against them is ridiculous. I deny miracle explanations, in short, not because "I have a doctrine against them," but rather because naturalism (belief that all exists is the natural world) is very inductively justified; supernatural explanations throughout history have fallen to the wayside in favor of naturalistic explanations (read more about this in my opening statement here). Additionally, saying "a miracle happened" is a poor explanatory device because miracle claims generally appeal to that which is unexplained and raise far more questions than they answer.

The writer continues, "The open, obvious, democratic thing is to believe an old apple-woman when she bears testimony to a miracle, just as you believe an old apple-woman when she bears testimony to a murder."

This is a very poor way to reason. If an old apple-woman claims that she saw a miracle, I'm not going to believe her until I find sufficient evidence to establish warrant for believing the miracle claim. I'll investigate, sure, but I won't 'just believe.' Human testimony, Hume famously argued, is insufficient to establish a miracle unless the falsehood is more miraculous than the miracle:

The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), 'That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish....' When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.

The writer continues, "If it comes to human testimony there is a choking cataract of human testimony in favor of the supernatural. If you reject it, you can only mean one of two things ... you either deny the main principle of democracy, or you affirm the main principle of materialism - the abstract impossibility of a miracle."

This is a quite obvious false dichotomy; there are more options here besides "denying the main principle of democracy" or "affirming the main principle of materialism." I can, of course, not even appeal to materialism (and/or not even accept materialism is true) and say that there is not enough reason, argument, and evidence to establish that a miracle occurred. Casting persons who don't believe miracles as 'undemocratic' is not useful here.

Mere human testimony is simply inadequate to establish a miracle. If we were accept [just] testimony and agree that testimony were sufficient [enough] to establish a miracle, we'd be forced to believing all sorts of miracle claims and arrive at contradictions. Some Catholics, for instance, will say that the Virgin Mary performs miracles and some Wiccans, for example, will not believe the Virgin Mary performs miracles and may appeal to goddesses and gods. If we were to accept testimony from both, we would believe that the Virgin Mary performs miracles and that gods and goddesses perform miracles when both propositions are not compatible.

While not quite a miracle, we'd also have to accept the testimony of persons who were abducted by aliens, 'cured' by faith healers, divined by psychics, and so much more. Obviously we don't accept these testimonies, so why dismiss these things while accepting testimony of miracles?

Some persons, responding to skeptics, might allege the following, "Well, do you think this person is lying? So many people are so honest and are convinced that they experienced miracles! What good reason have they to lie?" It would not be proper to call believers in miracles 'liars,' but rather is proper to say -- and with good reason -- that these people have been deceived; believers in miracles may be very truthful and sincere, but it can be the case that they haven't considered better explanations for the events they allegedly witnessed.

Instead of accepting miracle explanations, we should look for naturalistic explanations that better explain phenomena. Testimony is not sufficient to establish a miracle claim. The skeptic is not being 'dogmatic' in rejecting miracles, but rather is open-minded and rejects miracle claims for good reasons.

NEPA Freethought Society Podcast: Episode 3

2011-12-03T19:13:00.003-05:00

Episode three of the NEPA Freethought Society Podcast is online!

(You can also listen in iTunes and subscribe to our RSS feed.)

Show Notes:

Podcast Topics:

The founder of NEPA Freethought Society, Rodney Collins, who is an African-American atheist discusses race and religion with Justin Vacula.

Cast:

Justin Vacula (Podcast Host, Co-Organizer, Spokesperson, and a Board Member
Rodney Collins (Founder, Organizer, and Chairman of the Board)

Producer: Jason

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

Websites:

Paper:

Mark Mathabane, Apartheid, and Christianity

Books/Authors Mentioned:

News Stories/Articles:

Music Featured:

Artist: Greydon Square
Song: Stockholm Syndrome

The Problem of Evil: Are atheists simply 'asking too much?'

2011-12-03T10:14:00.005-05:00

Are atheists expecting paradise?

The evidential problem of natural evil (typically referred to as 'the problem of natural evil') is a well-known and common objection to theistic belief. How can belief in an all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing god who created the universe be maintained when one considers the amount of egregious suffering in the world that have nothing to do with human action? Since one should not expect egregious amounts of suffering if God existed, belief in God should be rendered irrational.

During some discussions regarding the problem of natural evil, some theists will charge the atheist with 'asking for too much.' A theist may say, "You're just asking for the world to be a perfect place. Since the world isn't perfect, you don't believe God exists." Does this response undermine atheists' concerns regarding the evidential problem of natural evil? Are atheists simply 'asking for too much?'

The objection that the atheist raises considers the current and past state of affairs in the universe as we see it. A casual survey of suffering in the world that is a result of the natural laws of the universe leads us to the conclusion that there is good reason to not only doubt the existence of God, but rather to conclude that God is incompatible with the current and past state of affairs - we would expect a much different universe if God existed. God is, after all, believed to be all-knowing and all-powerful, so God could have and should have (because he is all-loving) created the universe in a different manner.

We can certainly consider a possible world which is absent of some suffering (or even all suffering that is not the result of human action) and consider whether or whether not belief in God would be justified. While this may be an interesting thought experiment, it is not relevant to the current problem we are considering in our own universe.

Noting that the amount of suffering in our universe is incompatible with belief in God is not 'asking for too much,' but rather is noting a problem that we currently see - for the theist. This problem is not a problem for the atheist who is allegedly 'asking for too much,' but rather is a problem with the theist's claim about God.

Is the atheist even asking for too much, anyway? The meaning of the terms all-loving, all-powerful, and all-good should be quite evident; they do not mean somewhat-loving, mostly-powerful, and generally-good. If I were to have the powers to stop earthquakes without any effort, was all-loving, failed to stop the earthquakes, and had no good reason to refrain from stopping the earthquakes, I'd hardly be considered all-loving. Would I be justified in telling persons that they are asking for too much? I think not.

Claiming that an atheist is 'asking for too much' when arguing that natural evil serves as a defeater to belief in God does not answer the atheist's initial objection, raises an irrelevant point, and remains a problem for the theist. It is not the case that the atheist is asking for anything, but rather is the case that the atheist is noting that belief in God is problematic when considering the evidence of suffering in this world.

Ironically, perhaps, it doesn't seem to be the case that the atheist is asking for too much, but rather it seems to be the case that the theist is asking for too much from the God they imagine (rather than positing that God is not all-powerful, for instance, but rather very powerful).

(Guest Post) "The Problem of Omni-Terms and Ecological Suffering"

2011-12-02T20:03:00.003-05:00

An anonymous reader of my website recently sent me his/her essay that was submitted for a class. He/she asked me if I would like to edit the essay and post it on my website. I've previously written on many of the themes/ideas presented in this essay, so I'm happy to include it here and welcome feedback from readers.

The Problem of Omni-Terms and Ecological Suffering

Sean Faircloth discusses secularism and his new book "Attack of the Theocrats!"

2011-12-02T14:19:00.002-05:00

I published a new article for Examiner.com titled Sean Faircloth discusses secularism and his new book "Attack of the Theocrats!"

Read this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates!

God and the Gettier Problem: If God existed, was theistic belief justified?

2011-12-01T23:28:00.001-05:00

In a short essay titled Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?, philosopher Edmund Gettier raised some concerns about, as you may have guessed, justified true belief and knowledge. For this post, I'd like to explore how Gettier's essay relates to belief in God. If God happened to exist, can Christians rightly claim the 'high ground' and say that their belief in God was justified while atheists' lack of belief was unjustified?

Reflecting on Gettier's essay, we realize that it's quite possible to have sufficient evidence to believe a proposition and be correct even though the evidence did not lead to the truth value of the proposition. Suppose, for example, that I show you a good deal of evidence for you to be justified in believing that I own a Jeep. You believe that you are justified in believing that I own a Jeep and base your belief on the given evidence...but it turns out that your belief was correct despite the evidence you were shown. The reality of the situation – unknown to both me and you – was that I bought the Jeep from a dealer who had forged documents and had stolen the Jeep and someone named Kevin really owned the Jeep, but unbeknownst to me and you, I won a raffle on the same day you believed I owned a Jeep. In short, your belief that I owned a Jeep was correct, but for 'all the wrong reasons.' You simply were 'lucky' and arrived at a justified true belief because of chance.

Likewise, it's totally possible to be very justified in lacking belief in a given proposition and happen to be wrong for some unknown and perhaps unlikely reason. Consider Peter Popoff. Popoff is a televangelist who was exposed as a fraud during the days of The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson by skeptic James Randi. Popoff claimed to be able to cure diseases persons had and also claimed to have a direct link with God that allowed him to know details of persons such as their home addresses and what ailments they had. Randi discovered that Popoff had advance information about audience members and received said information from his wife via an earpiece.

We're quite justified in believing that Popoff was a charlatan and didn't have a direct link with God because we have a naturalistic and very plausible alternative explanation. Suppose, though, that Popoff really did have a link with God and the earpiece was simply a backup just in case God decided not to relay information to Popoff. Despite our justification in lacking belief that Popoff spoke with God, we actually were wrong. Was our lack of belief in Popoff's claims of speaking with God unjustified? Can 'Popoff believers' be considered intellectually praiseworthy?

Many Christians believe that their belief in God is justified even though they appeal to different reasons, many of the arguments given are deeply problematic, faith doesn't constitute knowledge, and much more. Some rely on Pascal's Wager – the idea, roughly, that we 'should elect to believe' in the Christian god because there is no way to 'know' whether God exists or not, so we ought to believe rather than disbelieve and face punishment – to somehow substantiate their belief in God. Whatever the reason, Christians believe that God exists. All of the standard reasons, it seems, are not sufficient to establish belief in God; many of the given arguments and reasons to believe in the Christian god, it seems, have been thoroughly 'debunked.'

Suppose, though, that the Christian god actually did exist and not one person's reason to warrant belief was justified. Suppose the Christian god actually did have sufficient reasons to create a universe with laws that guarantee random killing of persons through diseases, natural disasters, and much more; the problem of evil turned out to no longer be a problem. Suppose that the Christian god had a sufficient reason to remain hidden despite some obvious reasons that he should have to reveal himself.

Suppose that one day, the Christian god decided to utterly reveal himself so that almost everyone believed. Suppose he materialized in human form, submitted himself to all of our tests, and made non-belief an unreasonable position on par with belief that aliens created Olyphant, PA [or insert your favorite wacky claim here]. Perhaps, if he did not manifest in human form and provide very good reasons for humans to believe he existed, he simply happened to exist in an afterlife of sorts. At this point, should the persons who believe in the Christian god be intellectually praiseworthy for their belief? Can Christians rightly poke fun at non-Christians and call them fools as the Bible does?

If the Christian god exists, Christians have no justification whatsoever to claim that they are intellectually praiseworthy because their previous ideas that they believed led to justification for belief in the Christian god were not sufficient to warrant belief. These Christians were simply lucky and the non-Christians were justified in not believing that the Christian god existed.

Enter the concept of Hell, perhaps one of the most immoral and absurd parts of the Christian belief system – at least as understood by most laypersons. Hell, for the purposes of this post, is where non-Christians go to be tortured for eternity after they die for not believing that the Christian god exists [and other 'sins']. Can God be morally justified in sending someone to Hell because he/she did not believe the Christian god exists when the person was engaging the arguments and reasons given by theists and, to add 'icing on the cake,' permit believers to enter Heaven simply because they believed (and didn't even believe for the right reasons)?

Sketching what they call an “intellectually virtuous person” and the “epistemically virtuous person,” Philosophers Robert C. Roberts and W. Jay Wood note, in their book Intellectual Virtues, “The epistemically virtuous person values, cherishes, seeks, and appreciates intellectual goods. She wants to know important truths and understand how things work … she wants to “see for herself” in some kind of striking, relatively unmediated way; she is not satisfied with operating on mere hearsay … She needs approaches to questions that will yield answers; she needs epistemic habits and skilled faculties that will accomplish the work of justified believing, seeing, and understanding. … She needs education and training and formation to these ends. And she needs practices that are well-designed for harvesting the epistemic goods.”

Roberts and Wood also note that people suffer from prejudice if they hold beliefs for inadequate reasons such as simply liking a belief, not wanting to experience negative consequences because of fear or anxiety, appeal to tradition, and lack of willingness to investigate whether or not the belief is justified.

Some persons, including myself, spend quite some time investigating questions relating to whether there is any justification for believing in anything supernatural. I would, as you might expect, say that my lack of belief in any gods is very justified (and, of course, I've argued this in various posts including a recent written debate) while belief in any gods is very unjustified. Shall I be punished by a god who never produced adequate evidence for his existence while, at the same time, my investigation into the 'god question' produced no good reason to believe in such a god? This would be ridiculous.

Likewise, it would be ridiculous for theists to be rewarded for belief in God although their reasons for belief were inadequate to establish belief, their belief was not the process of an intellectually virtuous process, and much more.

If God happened to exist, the state of the evidence before he either revealed himself or a particular person (or all/most persons) rightly led the atheist to maintain that there was no justification for belief in God. The theist was merely lucky for maintaining belief in God and they would not rightly be labeled as intellectually praiseworthy if God happened to exist because their reasons for believing so were unjustified.

I recognize that some theists honestly believe that belief in God is justified and, like me, some have spent considerable time in investigating these issues by writing, asking questions, reading, listening to debates, etc. I don't doubt the sincerity of persons, for instance, like Alvin Plantinga or William Lane Craig even though I think their arguments are very bad ones. If Craig and Plantinga happened to be right about the Christian god and their arguments did not warrant the conclusion that the Christian god existed, they are not justified in asserting that their belief was justified or maintaining that the atheist was unjustified.

Whether any gods exist or not, I maintain that my lack of belief in the Christian god is justified given the current state of the evidence. If theists happen to be right, and not for the current reasons they propose, their belief was not justified, but rather they happened to be lucky. If I happen to be wrong, my lack of belief in God, prior to the 'revelation' was justified.

As Bertrand Russell once said, responding to a question of, “What if God existed? What would you tell him?” I would say, likewise, to God, “Not enough evidence.” Theists can't rightly claim the high ground if God does happen to exist, for their belief was unjustified.

Responding to comments regarding my Divine Hiddenness post by "Truth in Fighting"

2011-11-30T14:38:00.007-05:00

Recently, I authored two posts regarding the problem of divine hiddenness in which I responded to common defenses theists give for the problem of divine hiddenness [and did not argue that divine hiddenness serves as a defeater for belief in God].

A theist from the blog "Truth in Fighting: A unique look at issues through the eyes of an MMA fighter, featuring theological discourse" (henceforth referred to as "Truth") engages in a very large amount of personal attacks (at least in this post) responding to my "Divine Hiddenness and Free Will" post. I don't want to 'poison the well here,' but rather note the low level of discourse that takes place in this post before responding to the comments made in between the personal attacks.

I found it rather ironic that Justin Vacula decided to open his argument with a excerpt from Calvin and Hobbes, since his argument contains all of the illogical and emotional reasoning one would expect from a child the age of Calvin.

This argument is already a non starter due to the fact that Justin, like so many other ignorant skeptics and theists, think that the "the all-powerful, all-loving, and all-knowing god" somehow accurately describes the Christian God. It doesn't.

Not only is his inaccurate description of God a major problem, his argument typically displays the same ol' double standard of logic and reasoning that skeptics only apply to religion and not to anything else.

He then goes on to post quite a strange analogy in the process of engaging in more personal attacks (I count at least fifteen below):

This is an emotional argument. Since when does love logically entail person X must personally meet with person Y before person Y joins in a cause. Furthermore, it reveals the ignorance of basic Christian theology.

That's about the gist of it. This 'why doesn't God reveal Himself to me' line of logic not only fails, but it never had any start to begin with. Like most 'arguments' skeptics give, their logic applies SOLELY to religion and if one were to apply the same type of logic to anything else, they would rightly be considered an idiot.

His argument isn't the only thing sorely lacking in this department. He also can't seem to tell the difference between belief and faith, which I believe stems from his elementary or non existent knowledge of Christianity. This guy has created 7 rebuttals to 7 'defenses' he claims theists bring up in response to his argument. A lot of these defenses I would never use, so I will only go over the ones I myself would use.

Again, this bad reasoning all boils down to complete and utter lack of even the most basic knowledge of Christianity.

Vacula is severely lacking in basic Christian theology.

How he thinks he is qualified to refute a single thing regarding Christianity when he doesn't even know Hebrews 11:6 is beyond me.

As you can see, Vacula is neither competent in logic or Christian theology. Just another lightweight intellectually shallow skeptic that thinks his arguments are something new under the sun. Laughable.

I would wager that engaging in more than fifteen personal attacks in one post while responding to someone's comments makes a person look really bad and would lead readers to not to even take the person seriously - and for good reason. Heaping personal attacks onto a person is not an effective or mature way to argue. We can and should disagree while being respectful as 1 Peter 3:15 says.

As I noted, I didn't argue that divine hiddenness serves as a defeater for belief in the Christian god, but rather responded to the defenses theists give to answer the problem. "Truth in Fighting," though, assumes this throughout the post - which is obviously problematic. I'd like, though, to address his points regardless of the personal attacks and the misunderstanding/strawman.

his argument is already a non starter due to the fact that Justin, like so many other ignorant skeptics and theists, think that the "the all-powerful, all-loving, and all-knowing god" somehow accurately describes the Christian God. It doesn't. The problem here how people inaccurately define the 'all-loving' part as some sort of fuzzy, feel good, warm emotion. It's more synonymous with 'happy' or 'wants to make people happy' than it is with the word love. One look the bible will see that God does things that do not match up with the warm, fuzzy, feel good definition of the word love.

I agree that the Bible doesn't describe God as all-loving. This is not, though, a problem for me, but rather the theists. The 'god concept' typically described to me is all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing - and this is how many academic theists and Christian philosophers believe God to be. Some, like William Lane Craig, for example, profess that God is all-loving even in the face of slaughter. Others, particularly in problem of evil discussions, will try to argue that evil is needed for 'soul-building' and that we can know what good is. Some even argue that God has sufficient reasons, of course, for permitting evil and he still remains all-good. If the all-loving attribute were removed from God, the problem of evil wouldn't even be a problem; all-loving then, it seems means all-loving in the sense that most persons understand it.

Not only is his inaccurate description of God a major problem, his argument typically displays the same ol' double standard of logic and reasoning that skeptics only apply to religion and not to anything else. When people want to work for walmart, they neither demand nor expect the CEO of walmart to meet with them before they apply. When people enlist in the military, they neither expect nor demand the leaders of the specific branch to personally meet with them before they enlist. If the CEO of walmart or the leader of a military branch doesn't meet with the average joe before they enlist in the military or send in an application for walmart, why would anyone expect God, who is the creator of the universe, expect such a thing?

This analogy fails; persons have good reason to believe that CEOs and military leaders exist. the belief that these persons exist is overwhelmingly reasonable while the belief in God, as theists would even admit, is not on par with belief that Wal-Mart has a CEO. The person applying to be a Wal-Mart worker or a solider additionally has no good reason to meet the CEO or military leaders before enlisting. I would wager, though, that persons should want to have good reasons to believe God exists before 'enlisting' in the Christian faith. I would get a job or enlist in the military not because I have sufficient warrant to believe that CEOs or military leaders exist, but rather because I want to make money, serve the country, etc.

That's about the gist of it. This 'why doesn't God reveal Himself to me' line of logic not only fails, but it never had any start to begin with. Like most 'arguments' skeptics give, their logic applies SOLELY to religion and if one were to apply the same type of logic to anything else, they would rightly be considered an idiot.

The thrust of the "Why doesn't God reveal himself to me" reasoning is that God ought to be morally compelled -- and for good reasons -- to reveal himself. A god who wants persons to believe he exists and knows that many people are killing each other because of religious differences should feel morally compelled to do so.

An all-powerful and all-knowing being, I would wager, should have a tremendous amount of moral responsibility - and much more so than humans do. If I were all-knowing and all-powerful and, at the same time, I wanted persons to believe I existed and knew that persons were killing each other because of me and I could prevent much of this by revealing myself, I would feel obliged to do so. Persons would be horrified to see me sitting at my computer, for example, doing nothing about this situation. If I should be compelled to reveal myself in this hypothetical scenario, why shouldn't God? After all, he should have much more moral responsibility.

Of course, it's not the case that everyone would believe I existed if I revealed myself if I were all-powerful and all-knowing, but revealing myself would not compel people to believe and it would prevent a great deal of suffering.

Again, I'm not making this argument, but rather am posing a hypothetical. Perhaps, though, in the future, I might craft a divine hiddenness argument. If I were to do so, though, I'd spend a great deal of time supporting the premises of the argument mainly arguing why we should expect God to reveal himself if he existed. As many know, though, absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence, so the atheist ought to be careful when crafting a divine hiddenness argument.

He also can't seem to tell the difference between belief and faith, which I believe stems from his elementary or non existent knowledge of Christianity.

The terms 'belief' and 'faith' are very 'open' terms that can have many different definitions. I would, though, generally define 'belief' as 'assenting to the truth value of a proposition' and 'faith' as 'belief in a proposition that is not backed by reason, argument, and evidence.' Depending on the context, I may define these terms differently and many others may disagree with my definitions. Regardless, those are the definitions I would generally give. My "elementary" or "non existent knowledge" of Christianity has nothing to do with this.

Just to note: this idea of "lack of knowledge about Christianity" is quite peculiar because all sorts of Christians disagree about certain matters...and then claim that atheists lack knowledge. How am I suppose to have knowledge of "True Christianity" (TM) when so many people are claiming different things and beliefs vary from person to person? I can only respond to what I am given and generally respond to what most theists believe or otherwise specifically address an argument.

The Bible, even, defines faith quite differently throughout. Is faith "belief in things not seen?" Is faith "hope and trust in God?" Many will interpret faith differently and there doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to believe a given interpretation is accurate while others are inaccurate. This is one of the reasons I hardly care about the Bible and don't think that it's worth my time in arguments. I'll mention some verses and ideas that Christians hold that seem to lead to a contradiction (particularly, perhaps, the idea that we need suffering for there to be good although there is supposedly no suffering in Heaven), but that's not my preferred route.

First off, God revealing Himself unequivocally is not the same thing as revealing Himself through nature or a prayer. That failure of logic is enough to destroy his 'rebuttal of defense (1), since an unequivocal revelation of God is not the same thing as revealing Himself through design and prayer, but it would be wrong not to continue on.

I use the term unequivocally throughout the post to generally mean " relatively undoubtable." A charitable reading of my post should lead the reader to this conclusion when they especially take care to think about my ideas regarding God "compelling" persons to believe if he revealed himself.

I'm not sure what 'God revealing himself through nature' means because many theists assert that God has revealed himself through nature, but yet this is obviously not enough to convince almost everyone (and the arguments from design and fine-tuning quite profoundly fail). Let us suppose, though, that God simply animated every tree to teleport into the air and all of the clouds assembled to say "The Christian god exists." Would this not be a unequivocal revelation? Of course, we still have the problems of distinguishing the source of the miracle (if that is what you would call this), but that's besides the point. I don't understand what "Truth" is getting at there.

God revealing himself through prayer wouldn't be revealing himself to everyone because, of course, not everyone is praying to God. How can we even claim, anyway, that God reveals himself through prayer/ justify this conclusion? The original concern of this post that the atheist or theist might raise is 'Why doesn't God unequivocally reveal himself to everyone,' not revelation through prayer. Again, I'm not sure what "Truth" is getting at. Moving on...

His second error is asserting that Defense 1 fails because Christians continue to sin. Again, this bad reasoning all boils down to complete and utter lack of even the most basic knowledge of Christianity. First off, Christians continue to sin and will continue to sin, because we are imperfect and we live in an imperfect world.

The thrust of my objection to Defense (1) is this: Christians maintain that free will can not be maintained if god reveals himself. If there is no free will, some think, because God revealed himself, no one would be able/would want to sin because they knew God existed. At the same time, though, many Christians maintain that they 'know' God exists (when he obviously didn't utterly reveal himself to everyone although these Christians think God has done so and that his existence is obvious) and they continue to sin. Since Christians who maintain that free will would be lost if persons 'knew' God [through him revealing himself] continue to sin, Defense (1) can't possibly work.

"Truth" stating that persons continue to sin because humans are imperfect, digs a great hole and is an admission that humans would not lose free will if God revealed himself! If God revealed himself, would humans somehow become perfect and would the world be perfect? I don't see any compelling reason to believe this.

God revealing Himself to man unequivocally will kill us since it clearly says in the bible "None who see my face sha'll live." (exodus 33:20.) and that "God dwells in a light unapproachable that no man has seen or can't see." (I Tim. 6:16).

This is an example of circular reasoning of the form; it is true because the Bible says so because the Bible says it is true. Let's assume, though, that "Truth" can provide an argument as to why persons should believe this statement regardless of it being in the Bible to be charitable. The verses "Truth" links are concerned with seeing God's face. God is not limited when revealing himself is concerned; showing his face is not the only way he can do so. The 1 Timothy verse admits of a problem with God's omnipotence; if God is all-powerful, he would be able to reveal himself so that persons can see him.

While we're on the topic of the Bible, several verses actually seem to admit that persons can see God including Genesis 12:7, Genesis 17:1, Genesis 18:1, Genesis 26:2, Genesis 26:24, Genesis 32:30, Genesis 35:9, Genesis 48:3, Exodus 3:16, Exodus 4:5, Exodus 6:3, Exodus 24:9-11, Exodus 33:11, Exodus 33:23, Numbers 14:14, Deut. 5:4, Deut. 34:10, Judges 13:22, 1 Kings 22:19, Job 42:5, Psalm 63:2, Isaiah 6:1, Isaiah 6:5, Ezekiel 1:27, Ezekiel 20:35, Amos 7:7, Amos 9:1, Habakkuk 3:3-5, and Matthew 18:9.

We see, once again, that the Bible appears to be utterly useless in these discussions. We see apparent contradictions with the above verses in Exodus 33:20, John 1:18, John 6:46, Colossians 1:15, 1 Timothy 1:17, 1 Timothy 6:16, and 1 John 4:12. We can go back and forth all day arguing about which verses and accurate and which are not and this seems to get us nowhere. Moving on...

Also, he wonders why without faith belief in God is worthless. Again, a very common scripture in James 2:19 answers his question.

James 2:19
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder.

To answer his question, yes they are doing it wrong. The demons obviously believe in the existence of God. Satan, obviously believes in the existence of God and yes, they are doing it wrong.

Dare I say it...but my concern is not with demons, but rather humans. Demons obviously play by different rules and are quite unlike humans. I don't, though, find any compelling reason to believe in demons or Satan, so perhaps my previous comment was a silly one.

Perhaps, to be charitable, "Truth's" point is to argue that belief alone is not sufficient, but rather something else is needed. What, then, is this something else? "Truth" says that it is impossible to please God without faith. The problem, though, while we are on the topic of the Bible (and this is more testament to why I think arguing about the Bible is often useless), is that the Bible, in Matthew 12:37 says that you can be justified by words.

2 Corinthians 5:10 says that persons are judged according to works. Additionally, faith without works is dead (James 2:17). 2 Corin. 11:15 says that minister's salvation is dependent on works and it is "no great thing" that they are righteous [in faith]. Ezekiel 18:27 says that turning away from wickedness and doing what is lawful and right will save persons...and there's so much more.

Who says shifting responsibility doesn't solve the problem? that is just a baseless assertion with absolutely no evidence to support it. Here's an example of how shifting responsibility solves a problem. Problem, my iphone broke because of a hardware issue. If I shift the responsibility from my dog, who has absolutely nothing to do with my phone being broken, to the apple company, who sold me a busted phone, the problem is solved because I get a new phone.

Shifting responsibility here doesn't solve the problem because the 'ball is in God's court.' The issue at hand is "Why doesn't God reveal himself," not "Why should it be up to God, humans should find God." Shifting responsibility might solve problems in other cases, for sure, but it's not going to here.

A quick note on 'doing philosophy' and my Divine Hiddenness posts

2011-11-30T13:53:00.004-05:00

On this blog, I often evaluate arguments, respond to arguments, and consider various ideas I might not believe. This is what some might call 'doing philosophy.' Sometimes, additionally, I open posts with pictures or ideas that might not necessarily reflect what I believe, but rather fit the theme of the post. While I indeed make many arguments within this blog, not every post is an argument. Many of my posts, in fact, have the tag 'Responding to Arguments.' Some of these 'responding to arguments' posts contain arguments I am making and responses to arguments and some do not.

For example, in a recent post of mine, "Divine Hiddenness and Free Will," I don't even make an argument, but rather survey an issue and note what other people tend to think about an issue. Starting the post, I wrote,

Atheists (and theists) wonder why -- since it is the case that theists profess God wants everyone to believe he exists – God simply doesn't unequivocally reveal himself so that persons can 'enter into a relationship' with God, no longer doubt, stop fighting one another because of religious differences, and go to Heaven. An all-powerful, all-loving, and all-knowing god should have no problem revealing himself to persons and should want to do so considering he is all-loving [he wants persons to avoid Hell and enter into Heaven]. Why, then, doesn't God just stop playing hide-and-seek and reveal himself?

Here, there is no argument, but rather an introductory paragraph saying "Atheists (and theists) wonder why..." I did not make an argument here, but rather wrote about an issue persons consider. This should be quite obvious because I type "Atheists (and theists)." Further, when considering the rest of the post, I never argued that God revealing himself would cause people to "no longer doubt." In fact, I did argue that there still would be doubt if God revealed himself because some persons would not just immediately accept God's existence.

I wrote,

I and many other atheists are aware that even if a, say, 400 foot Jesus were to march through the skies and mountains were to spin around in the sky, there would still be reasons to be skeptical. Perhaps some advanced alien technology that we are unaware of is causing us to imagine that the event is happening or the display itself is the result of such technology. If I were to see something that did not seem to adhere with what I currently know about the universe, I wouldn't immediately jump to the conclusion that God exists. I'd approach this matter very carefully and would not jump to conclusions.

The post on Divine Hiddenness and Free Will mainly concerned the responses theists give to answer the problem of divine hiddenness. Despite this being quite obvious, not all persons saw this.

Additionally, I noted what I thought was a very clear thesis statement:

I will respond to these six defenses and note further problems that theists face in which they simply can't 'have it both ways.'

I ended the post with the following:

When we don't find a good reason to believe a proposition, the proper response is to not accept the claim. If we can't think of a possible reason for God not revealing himself (and additionally find no reasons to believe God exists), we're quite justified in not believing that the Christian god exists. Even if we can devise a reason for God remaining hidden, this doesn't, of course, mean that God exists. With lack of a reason for God to remain hidden and a lack of a reason to believe God exists, the theist faces two major problems.

When I mention "If we can't think of a possible reason for God not revealing himself (and additionally find no reasons to believe God exists), we're quite justified in not believing that the Christian god exists," I am quite careful to include an "and" here. Reiterating this, at the end of the paragraph, I note another "and."

The final [concluding] paragraph notes:

The common defenses theists give to answer the problem of divine hiddenness fail. Theists believe that persons would lose their free will if God unequivocally revealed himself, but this simply is not the case. The variations of this free will response to the problem of divine hiddenness are not sufficient for one to believe that God has a good reason to remain hidden. Additionally, the idea that natural regularities can only be had if God remained hidden fails. Finally, the common 'mystery card,' if this works for the Christian god, would have to work for every other possible god.

Once again, the post concerned discussing a problem and refuting the common defenses theists provide to answer the problem. If I were to argue that the problem of divine hiddenness were to provide a defeater to belief in the Christian god, I would have explained why this was the case and put time into actually writing an argument rather than responding to the defenses commonly given.

In a follow up post, I wrote

In a recent post, I discussed the problem of divine hiddenness (why God remains hidden despite very good reasons God would have to reveal himself). I showed why various standard arguments apologists give-- mainly 'free will defenses'-- to provide reasons for why God would remain hidden fail. I'll give a quick summary of my previous post and then argue that even if people believed God existed, not all would worship him.

I argued, in my first post on this topic, that there are no good reasons to suggest that persons would lose free will (assuming free will exists) because persons would be skeptical/ not everyone would believe that God exists. Additionally, I noted that the theist is trying to 'have it both ways' because some already maintain that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for God...and yet they still maintain that they have free will. If a theist maintains that faith is the only way to believe in God and that there can not be sufficient evidence to believe, their argument about God's appearance compelling belief is undone by their own admission. Arguments concerning natural regularities and morally significant decisions also fail. Objections of 'we can't know the mind of God' and 'it is not God's responsibility to reveal himself' also fall short.

If this isn't enough reason for someone to believe that I wasn't arguing that the problem of divine hiddenness provides a defeater for belief in the Christian god, I don't know what can.

Much can be gained by discussion of issues and not all discussion entails that someone is making an argument. Discussion about issues, rather than making arguments, can be quite important and reveal some truths. I certainly 'come out' on some issues, but intentionally 'keep some issues open' and present others' ideas [I don't necessarily agree with] in order to use them as educational tools.

Santorum: Scientific community "afraid of discussion" about God in classrooms

2011-11-30T11:30:00.003-05:00

I published a new Examiner.com article titled "Santorum: Scientific community "afraid of discussion" about God in classrooms." Read this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates.

Jason Torpy: 'Camp Pendleton Cross' inappropriate and illegal memorial

2011-11-29T15:55:00.002-05:00

I published a new article for Examiner.com titled "Jason Torpy: 'Camp Pendleton Cross' inappropriate and illegal memorial." Read this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates.

More on Divine Hiddenness

2011-11-29T11:33:00.007-05:00

In a recent post, I discussed the problem of divine hiddenness (why God remains hidden despite very good reasons God would have to reveal himself). I showed why various standard arguments apologists give-- mainly 'free will defenses'-- to provide reasons for why God would remain hidden fail. I'll give a quick summary of my previous post and then argue that even if people believed God existed, not all would worship him.

I argued, in my first post on this topic, that there are no good reasons to suggest that persons would lose free will (assuming free will exists) because persons would be skeptical/ not everyone would believe that God exists. Additionally, I noted that the theist is trying to 'have it both ways' because some already maintain that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for God...and yet they still maintain that they have free will. If a theist maintains that faith is the only way to believe in God and that there can not be sufficient evidence to believe, their argument about God's appearance compelling belief is undone by their own admission. Arguments concerning natural regularities and morally significant decisions also fail. Objections of 'we can't know the mind of God' and 'it is not God's responsibility to reveal himself' also fall short.

One point that I didn't discuss in depth was the idea that even if God revealed himself and everyone believed God existed, persons simply all would not worship him. Many atheists, in discussion about God's character, will argue that Christians are simply 'getting it wrong' when they apply the characteristic of 'all-loving' to God and would say that if the Christian god revealed himself, they would not worship him, but rather would rebel in some sort of way. Some persons of other religions, I would wager, even if the Christian god revealed himself and the Christian god had a very long conversation with us, would continue to worship their deities and offer some explanation of why their deities remained hidden while the Christian god revealed himself.

Some atheists -- and perhaps most popularly, Christopher Hitchens -- have argued that they do not want the Christian god to exist and would not 'sign on' to Heaven/eternal worship of God if a choice were to be had. Does the theist honestly think that persons like this would experience a cognitive shift if God revealed himself as he was known prior to revelation?

For some who may still not be convinced that all persons would not worship God if he utterly revealed himself, consider the following analogy. A large portion of the inhabitants of the planet Eth believe in an all-evil, all-powerful, and all-knowing god. Some persons who don't believe all-evil god exists object on various grounds such as atheists of planet earth do and say that even if all-evil god revealed himself, they would not worship such a being.

Is this situation much different than that on earth? If all-evil god revealed himself, some Ethians would refuse to worship. If all-good god revealed himself, Earthlings would refuse to worship. If you believe that Ethians could refuse to worship all-evil god, why wouldn't it be the case that Earthlings could do the same?

There is many good reasons to believe that God utterly revealing himself would not compel all persons to worship him.

---

A recent blog post from JD Curtis -- the person who I recently engaged with in a written debate -- responding to some of my arguments and a commenter on my Facebook page raises some questions and objections regarding the problem of divine hiddenness.

JD argues that arguments from "fine-tuning" and "the probability of specifically-coded DNA sequences arising by random chance" show "fingerprints of a Creator God [...] all over His creation" and says "God unmistakingly and clearly showing Himself to all would then diminish the overall amount of free choice we have when deciding what we would like to do." If JD believes that God revealing himself to all would diminish free choice and maintains that God had revealed himself to JD, it must follow that JD has diminished free choice...but JD doesn't maintain that he has diminished free choice. He simply can't have it both ways.

This is important because variations of 'free will defenses' rest on the idea that God doesn't utterly reveal himself because if he did, persons would lose their free will or have "diminished free choice" (as JD says here) in some manner. The theist can't possibly maintain this free will defense when he individually maintains that 'fingerprints of God are all over creation.' If the free will defense were to work, the individual theist who maintains there is sufficient evidence to believe in God must also maintain that their free will has been diminished.

JD maintains that "such a powerful manifestation would amount to coercion on God's behalf and God would rather that we behave and make our choices absent of any sort of psychological pressure on people that such an appearance would entail." JD notes that people behave differently when they perceive they are being watched. I agree. The problem, though, is, once again, that individual theists do believe they are being watched by God and they don't maintain that this is coercion. Many theists believe that there is sufficient reason to believe in God, yet they still 'sin' and face threats of hellfire. Why aren't individual theists being coerced today?

JD, responding to the change of 'don't threats of hellfire amount to coercion,' notes, "I find it only fair that we are forewarned of the consequences of our actions." This doesn't answer the objection. He also notes, "a truly evil god would never reveal that there were consequences for certain actions until we stand in judgment." I don't know what reason JD has for assuming this, but it's quite obvious that JD is largely ignoring fantasy literature. First, JD has no examples of truly evil gods that exist, so how can be make this claim. Second, would it be hard to imagine that a truly evil god would threaten people with consequences if they did not do its bidding?

Suppose, for example, a truly evil god wanted a specific trinket that a human owned. Suppose, then, that minions of this evil being approached this human and informed the human that he would be eternally imprisoned if he/she did not relinquish the trinket. Regardless, I don't see how knowing consequences somehow justifies a punishment [from a god that was unjust] or gets gods 'off the hook.'

JD seemingly goes on to say that there would be a major difference from God appearing and saying, "If you perform x, you'll go to Hell" and inspiring Bible writers to warn of a threat in the future while God did not tell this to a person. While it might be the case that persons may view God telling them more pressing, this still doesn't diminish the threat and individual theists still profess the dangers of Hell, are very afraid of it, etc. One of the ways theists [and the Bible] provide to diminish the threat or somehow deal with it is repentance; Jesus died so that sins may be forgiven.

I don't see how this gets the theist off the hook. What, exactly, is the argument here? JD doesn't explicitly state one. Perhaps the argument is, "God doesn't utterly reveal himself because the threat of Hell [, said by God,] would modify behavior." I've already dealt with this argument. Some theists believe that there are sufficient reasons to believe Hell really does exist and that they will possibly go there. Did these persons lose their free will?

A commenter on my page noted that JD was special pleading; he said that persons are aware that other persons exist and are not compelled to worship or love them and still maintain free will assuming free will exists. Why should God be a different case, the commenter wonders. JD's response to this is "you are in relationships with people because you want to be." Wonderful. Why, then, do the rules change with God? It is logically possible to both believe God exists and not worship God just like it is logically possible to believe other persons exist and not worship/love them. JD's working against himself here.

Finally, JD asks, " so you would argue a huge, gigantic, and beautiful sky-god [...] would in no way cause "psychological pressure" to "do some act against his or her will." I already addressed this in my first post on this topic; persons would still evaluate the given reasons to believe (or not believe) in God and come to a conclusion. If JD believes the 40-foot tall Jesus would coerce and that this is sufficient reason to believe in God, how can he also maintain what he considers to be evidence for God (fine-tuning and DNA) is not coercing him?

God and The Meaning of Life

2011-11-28T13:46:00.005-05:00

"Life's objective's to make it meaningful."

"I'm so afraid to, I couldn't stand to waste all my energy on things that do not matter anymore."

- Epica, Sensorium

Many readers of my blog probably have heard the following sentiment: "If God does not exist, why should we bother living? What's the point of it all?" When I hear this sort of sentiment, I think in quite a charitable and optimistic way believing that the person uttering this statement simply has not considered the issues at hand. I contest that the 'god question' is completely irrelevant to questions of meaning; regardless of whether any gods exist, persons can establish meaning in their lives. Additionally, even if a person believes that there is no meaning, we can find various reasons to continue living.

Generally, the phrase 'meaning of life' is concerned with the purpose and significance of one's life. Meaning, though, it seems, is quite a subjective matter and often an ill-defined term. Some consider meaning to be found in appealing to a deity who has some objective for humans. Others (like myself) find meaning in appealing to experiences in life that are fulfilling. Some believe meaning can only be found in events that are significant in a cosmic sense; these persons believe that if there can not be a 'grand significance' for the future, no meaning can be had.

Some theists, as mentioned, believe that atheists have no reason to continue living and presumably seem to believe that the only way an accounting can be given for meaning is by appealing to God. Can belief in God really be the only way to arrive at meaning? Should atheists simply commit suicide because they don't believe in God?

Consider the following hypothetical:

Joe believes the Christian god exists. He goes through life experiencing much joy, looks forward to the future, has a great deal of social connections and support from said connections, has a well-paying job, and can list many accomplishments that are important to him. Joe, every night, prays to God and thanks God for being able to experience so many opportunities that he believes God allows. With God, Joe believes, meaning is possible.

At a later age, Joe came across a new friend -- Bill -- a dentist who happened to be an atheist. Joe, quite confident in his Christian belief, engaged the atheist in discussion. Bill asked Joe how he can believe in the goodness of a god who rules a world when considering natural disasters, disease, and grievous dental problems. Joe's responses of 'the devil,' 'free will,' and a 'fallen world' went nowhere in the discussion as Bill was able to provide solid refutations. Going home later in the day, Joe was wrought with doubt and decided to embark on a journey to find a good argument to justify his Christian belief. After about a year of research, Joe relinquished his Christian beliefs and realized he was an atheist.

Are we to believe that all of what Joe had accomplished prior to realizing he was an atheist was in naught? Prior to realizing he was an atheist, Joe found meaning in his life, but he attributed the meaning to God. Shall Joe enter into some emotional despair and commit suicide like many theists would think (without God, some maintain, there is no reason to live)? Such a response would not seem justified. With or without God, Joe can cherish the here and now, the past, and find many reasons to continue living. No matter how Joe establishes meaning in his life (or even if he admits life is meaningless), he can still value his experiences and find reasons to continue living.

Despite some theists believing that meaning can only be found by appealing to God and believing that life is only worth living if God exists, we see many godless persons living and enjoying life. I've never heard even one case of a person committing suicide because he/she realized that he/she was an atheist. Meaning or no meaning, we atheists should be enough 'proof' for theistic persons to rid themselves of this 'there is no reason to live if there is no God' idea.

As a philosophical naturalist, I believe that the natural world is all that exists. I don't find any compelling reasons to suggest that any sort of afterlife or second life of any kind exists. Consciousness, it seems, is dependent on brain activity; when the brain completely ceases to function, there is no consciousness. How am "I" supposed to experience anything when my brain completely ceases to function?

I have found my life, despite many hardships I have faced, to be very fulfilling and thus value my life. I can find many reasons to continue living whether or not there is any meaning or any gods exist. I have actually found more meaning in my life since I have realized I was an atheist; many doors have opened, I have learned a great deal, met many more people, shared my ideas with a large audience, have intellectually matured, and so much more.

Whether or not God exists seems to have no bearing on whether meaning can be found in life. With or without God, persons have found many reasons to continue living. Persons would do well in relinquishing this idea of life being utterly pointless if gods did not exist. No matter how we give an accounting of meaning -- or even if we admit that life is meaningless -- God is not necessary to maintain a reason to live.

"Race and Religion" episode of NEPA Freethought Society podcast to be released

2011-11-27T12:38:00.001-05:00

I published a new article for Examiner.com titled "Race and Religion" episode of NEPA Freethought Society podcast to be released. Read this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates.

President Obama omits God from Thanksgiving address

2011-11-25T10:16:00.001-05:00

I published a new Examiner.com article titled "President Obama omits God from Thanksgiving address." Read this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates!

Margaret Downey: Tree of Knowledge should be holiday symbol for atheists

2011-11-24T11:15:00.001-05:00

I published a new article for Examiner.com titled "Margaret Downey: Tree of Knowledge should be holiday symbol for atheists." Read this and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates!

I don't always thank God for my blessings on Thanksgiving...

2011-11-24T08:32:00.003-05:00

Christian hospital worker: Removal of religious symbols is taking away freedom

2011-11-23T13:32:00.001-05:00

I published a new article on Examiner.com titled "Christian hospital worker: Removal of religious symbols is taking away freedom." Read this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates!

Justin Vacula's Blog

Final design for inoffensive bus ads

2/7/12 - Really, Really, Really inoffensive atheist bus ads - some updates

"Inoffensive atheist ad challenge" accepted in Pennsylvania

Theological Fatalism

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

Marywood University Secular Student Alliance

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

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

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

Rhode Island radio show host attacks atheists, Jessica Ahlquist

Adam Savage to speak at Reason Rally

Are science and faith in opposition?

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

Margolies’ talk should be a learning experience

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

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

Design my new banner!

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

Atheist does not equal ‘bad person’

Scranton bishop opposes speaker who encourages women to be politically active

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

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

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

Podcast Topics:

Cast:

Related Links:

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

NEPA Freethought Society Podcast: Episode 5

Show Notes:

Podcast Topics:

Cast:

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

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

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

"Debunked Science" admits of openness, progress

Dr. David Kyle Johnson talks about his book "Inception and Philosophy" at Google

Catholics claim regulations on charities threaten religious freedom

Philosopher Dr. William Irwin: "Idea that God intervenes in NFL games is absurd"

On effective atheist activism and responding to PZ Myers' critique of Massimo Pigliucci

Improved audio-only version of my "Does the Christian god exist?" debate with Rev. Marcelle Dotson

Is the language of being offended helpful for SOCAS advocates?

Confidence in science: Faith, fact, or something else?

Secular Coalition for America ranks presidential candidates in 2012 scorecard

Recorded Video - Debate: Does the Christian god exist? Rev. Marcelle Dotson vs. Justin Vacula

NEPA Freethought Society Podcast: Episode 4 [Video]

LifeWay Christian Bookstores reneges on pledge to Susan G. Komen Foundation

Christopher Hitchens, no stranger to Scranton, dies at age 62

Skeptic blogger responds to chiropractor's threats to sue (podcast)

Afterthoughts on the "Dr. Dan debacle"

PZ Myers weighs in on Dr. Dan debacle

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/12/14/dr-dan-golaszewski-is-a-quack/

Chiropractor's fiancee' threatens me with legal action - Another e-mail

Chiropractor's fiancee' threatens me with legal action

William Lane Craig: Atheists lack justification for ethical treatment of animals

Local chiropractor Dan Goleszweski runs away from criticism

Justin Vacula vs. Marcelle Dotson - Online Live Debate: Does the Christian god Exist? - December 19, 2011

NEPA Freethought Society Podcast goes live, integrates Skype

Local reader argues naturalistic worldview is inadequate

Life’s explanation rests with God

Dr. Steve Novella: Chiropractor Dan Golaszewski practices pseudoscience

Rick Perry elaborates on "Obama's war on religion"

Catholic League: Adopt an Atheist campaign is lighthearted and humorous

Catholic League launches "Adopt an Atheist" campaign

Rick Perry: "As president, I'll end Obama's war on religion"

NASA's Kepler discoveries cast doubts on theistic belief

Bishop of Harrisburg attends PA Nonbelievers event [VIDEO]

William Lane Craig: God shielded animal kingdom from an awareness of pain

Local writer believes I am limited by dogma

NEPA Freethought Society Podcast: Episode 3

Show Notes:

Podcast Topics:

Cast:

The Problem of Evil: Are atheists simply 'asking too much?'

(Guest Post) "The Problem of Omni-Terms and Ecological Suffering"

Sean Faircloth discusses secularism and his new book "Attack of the Theocrats!"

God and the Gettier Problem: If God existed, was theistic belief justified?

Responding to comments regarding my Divine Hiddenness post by "Truth in Fighting"

A quick note on 'doing philosophy' and my Divine Hiddenness posts

Santorum: Scientific community "afraid of discussion" about God in classrooms