To be fair, there are a few types of atheists:
(1) Positivist Atheists for which science and the laws of nature are the authority to be submitted to.
(2) Nietzschean Atheists for which personal choice must be submitted to above any outside authority.
(3) Existential Atheists who see that if all we are are “bags of molecules moving through inertia without purpose”, life is pointless so there is no authority but you just have to make due.
(4) Buddhist Atheists who don’t believe in God, but do believe in spirit. Since there is no ultimate authority, everyone is an authority even when they disagree.
(5) Cultural Atheists who are atheists because that’s what they were brought up as and never questioned it.
...
I could go on. There are probably a couple more classifications, but not much more. “A week” is pretty pointless if aimed at all atheists, but not so much so if aimed at some a subgroup.

And don’t forget:

6) Adulterous Atheists - You can pick them out this week because they’ll be wearing two A’s.

Actually, (6) would be the Aldous Huxley atheists. Basically, “God doesn’t exist because since otherwise we wouldn’t be able deprave ourselves”. They’d likely avoid the AA and prefer to celebrate drunk in the gutter.

Love it! Wonderful piece. I too have always wondered how healthy it would be to set yourself against things rather than for them. Atheists in my experience don’t really know what they are for but are very quick to condemn everything they’re against. Most of them, in my experience, are really just angry people and mostly pessimistic and most things. Nasty brutish group: rebels without a cause :)

Atheists are trying to communicate the point that they are just as able to be ethical as religious people. Too bad for them, but not many religious people disagree with them. They’re shadowboxing.

The question religious people ask isn’t “can” you be ethical and an atheist? Instead, we ask, “why” would you be ethical, if you’re an atheist?

They never have good answers. We Catholics obviously believe that God has written himself on our heart and we have natural inclinations toward good because we were made by THE good. When we do bad it’s usually through an effort made to deny our ethical foundation. Atheists are just insecure about the fact that they can’t explain “why” they’re ethical, especially if there is no god to be accountable to.

I dont know what Nora was getting at, but I think you are absolutely right in describing your life before as atheistic. It’s sad that it has become a label, as you reiterated, far more than a descriptive term. Funny thing about labels… people become far more interested in BELONGING than in knowing who they really are. It’s true about the Church, too. If we think too much about fitting in, claiming the group, and belonging - in a worldly sense - we forget to transcend it all by focusing on knowing who we are in light of what we believe. The label isn’t important, but the truth behind it is.

@Nora - And, back in the day, everyone was a bit more polite, don’t you think?  Every critical thing you say thing you about Catholics, and Jennifer can be said about every faith and, yes, even the atheists who like to remind us of how judgmental we are while they are never.  Granted, the open forum of the internet has brought about a great deal of education in many arenas but as you note a great deal of general anonymous mean-spiritedness. 

Back in the day, if someone disagreed with you it was done face to face where you could read the face, note the emotions and really engage in a conversation about points of disagreement.  Now, people are doing their bashing from the privacy of their homes which doesn’t necessarily elevate the conversation.  Sadly, no group is immune from breeding trolls.

I am sensitive to this topic because I have nephews who identify as atheists, as well as times within our own family where some identified as atheists. I have no sense that Jen is an opportunist, only that she is taking the opportunity to talk about where she came from and where she is going.

So, basically: if you’re an atheist, keep it to yourself. We don’t want to know.  We want to maintain the stigma attached to being an atheist, because it’s more comfortable for us as Catholics not to know you exist.

Yes, we are against the negative effects of religion. But we embrace charity, humanism, and the wonder of science. Posts like this, which show the incredible lack of understanding people have towards atheists and about atheism, are the reason we need A-week

Michelle, I didn’t get any censorship vibe from Jennifer’s post.  Rather, she seems to be saying that atheists should concentrate more on self examination than self glorification.  If people do not understand atheism, it is because, as this post says, many atheists use that term to inform others what they are not.

Reading between the lines of Nora’s comments it seems that the positive answer to what atheists believe is that they believe they are victims. And “in claiming the status of victim and by assigning all blame to others, a person can achieve moral superiority while simultaneously disowning any responsibility for one’s behavior and its outcome. The victims ‘merely’ seek justice and fairness. If they become violent (or rude), it is only as a last resort, in self-defense. The victim stance is a powerful one. The victim is always morally right, neither responsible nor accountable, and forever entitled to sympathy.”

Just sayin’

Um, Nora…

I’ll take your word for it. :]

But, yeah, sorry, I was referring mostly to Michelle’s comment. Reminds me I’ve got to get my eyes checked.

My thanks to all the armchair psychoanalysts and mind readers here for telling atheists what their innermost thoughts, feelings, and motives are, instead of having the humility to ASK them. It seems that the fewer atheists you actually know intimately, the more eager you are to claim to understand their innermost thoughts, feelings, and motives. So generous, so gracious, so kind.

The typical far-beyond-arm’s-reach approach to viewing (ugh, eww) atheists is sadly obvious here. Amos Wang comments here, categorizing atheists in his self-invented classification system as if he’s examining specimens in a zoo, preferably from well outside the cage. 

New Media Catholic begrudgingly acknowledges that most atheists live good, moral lives, but that’s not good enough for him/her because some of them can’t articulate WHY they’re good people to his/her satisfaction, using whatever the heck is his/her philosophical criteria.

Then of course there’s Jennifer Fulwiler’s smug post, where she waves her claim to having once been an atheist as if that’s some kind of certification of credibility for talking about ALL atheists. It’s not. Then she makes blanket analyses of not just all atheists, but all human beings, apparently using only herself as a reference. Making characterizations of a whole category of people by using only yourself for research is a very efficient way of showing both your own shortcomings and your ignorance of everyone else.
 
Despite its pretenses of offering “psychological help,” this post boils down to yet another complaint that you wish atheists would either convert to your and ONLY your religion, (Why “become Catholic”? Why not Muslim, for instance?) or just shut up and go back into hiding. Sorry, neither are going to happen.

Tap into that openhearted love that your prophet is so famous for, and put out the effort to actually get to know several atheists closely and personally. Throw out all of your self-referred theories, self-centered assumptions, and self-reassuring prejudice about them, and be humble enough to admit openly that you DON’T KNOW THEM.  If you’re not willing to do that, then at least please stop the armchair psychoanalysis and attempts at mind reading.

So Rich, how do you know we don’t KNOW any atheists? And why do we have to know them personally to understand what it means to be an atheist? Why can’t we just read the extensive information out there written by atheists about what they believe (or don’t believe)? Are they not telling us the truth and the only real way to know their hearts is to become fast friends?

I’ll just refer you to the victimhood post above. According to you the poor atheists are just maligned and misunderstood. Poor little victims.

I’m no arm-chair psychoanalysis Richard, so I suppose I’ll ask you: what is atheism about?  But wouldn’t you be only using yourself as a reference and projecting them on to all atheists?  (in other words, is there a “creed” for atheists?).

I’m sorry you feel angered by the articles and comments on this site.  I can’t speak for anyone on this site but myself, but I mean no ill will to you or anyone who claims to be an atheist.

For clarity’s sake, I’m a different Tim than the one who posted at 4:02 PM.

I second Tim’s comment. The first comment. Not the second comment. I AM the Tim that Tim just posted about in his second comment. So I’m the Tim that isn’t the other Tim. Hope that clears things up. Anyway, just like Tim I mean no ill will to you, Richard, or anyone else who claims to be an atheist. Except for my ex nephew-in-law. But that’s because he’s a big fat jerk who just happens to be an atheist.

That’s a great article and reminds me of something Whittaker Chambers wrote:

“A man is not primarily a witness against something.  That is only incidental to the fact that he is a witness for something.  A witness…is a man whose life and faith are so completely one that when the challenge comes to step out and testify for his faith, he does so, disregarding all risks, accepting all consequences.”

Now he wrote this about why it isn’t enough to be anti-communist without being pro-something else, but it immediately answered a question to my mind as to why in the Islamic world atheism is endemic and never provokes a reaction, all rage is directed against converts, particularly to Christianity. 

Interestingly, Alice Von Hildebrand recently wrote of Edith Stein that her becoming an atheist didn’t cut her off from her people the way her subsequent conversion to Catholicism did about a decade later. 

Many such observations lead me to believe that atheism can never be a creative force for good.  It is at best a way station on the way to something else.

Jen, I’m starting to watch your former atheist credentials.  We watch Cosmos with Carl Sagan before we watch Nova.

In all seriousness, I agree that no one should think of their primary identity as atheist or think that atheism is a complete philosophy/metaphysics/anything.  However, since atheists are often discussed as a group (Would you vote for an atheist, Can atheists behave morally, etc), it’s often necessary for atheists to defend ourselves together as atheists, even though we have little in common.  Sometimes we have to defend ourselves *from* atheists when folks like John Loftus or PZ Meyers give the rest of us a bad name.

Atheists themselves are split over whether we have any group identity/responsibilities.  I spent a few posts discussing whether atheists are really a ‘team’ here, if you’re interested: http://www.unequally-yoked.com/2010/11/can-there-be-atheist-agenda.html

This is in response to Tim #1 who addresses me as “Rich.” In answer to your questions:

“So Rich, how do you know we don’t KNOW any atheists?”
Honestly, DO you? Most of the remarks here are basically the same as those I’ve heard many times from theists who, when pressed, admit that they DON’T know any atheists. They talk about their imaginary atheist or one described to them by a bitter and cynical priest. Add to that your next question, which sounds like you’re making the case for blanket judgments without having to know any:

“And why do we have to know them personally to understand what it means to be an atheist?” 
Because we are a very diverse group, even less homogeneous than Christians, who are notorious for disagreeing with each other, even unto slaughtering each other. (Except perhaps for their attempts to unify under the flag of their common disdain for atheists.)  I’m frequently told by Christians that I cannot possibly “understand what it means to be a Christian” unless I become one. I won’t require that of you, only that you have the willingness to talk to us instead of talk about us, and the willingness to acknowledge that we can be at least as complex and diverse as you. 

“Why can’t we just read the extensive information out there written by atheists about what they believe (or don’t believe)?”
Honestly, have you? You can read the works of famous thinkers like Thomas Paine, Robert Ingersoll, Bertrand Russell, Carl Sagan, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, or Richard Dawkins, or you can just go find some pissed off rant on a blog written by one unknown atheist, or even better, someone like Jennifer here who tells you that she has us all figured out.  Find whatever supports your prejudice instead of whatever challenges it, and you’ll be satisfied that you “know” us.  There’s no degree in atheism, no certification that any author speaks for all atheists. Look at your own “extensive information” about Christianity. It’s so diverse, so spread across the spectrum of all possible opinions on all possible topics, that it’s harder to find what you agree with than what you disagree with, isn’t it?

“Are they not telling us the truth and the only real way to know their hearts is to become fast friends?”
They’re telling you the truth as they see it, and most of them will be very clear in their qualifications of it being only their experience. That’s a lot more honest than pretending that you know all the truth from a vicarious and cursory glance at one tiny part. You sound like the prospect of becoming fast friends with an atheist is painfully revolting to you. If so, just stay inside your portable gated community and enjoy your sense of superiority.

“I’ll just refer you to the victimhood post above. According to you the poor atheists are just maligned and misunderstood. Poor little victims.”
Tim, that’s a transparent and hollow mischaracterization of my remarks. I said nothing in that spirit. If you really think that a legitimate complaint about baseless slander is being a whining victim, then don’t complain the next time it’s done to you, and I’m sure that it has been done to you. When an atheist starts that kind of crap against Christians, I call them on it.  If you think that appealing to people to set aside their ill-informed stereotypes of others, and to have the courage and compassion to actually understand them is a request that is beneath you, then we have no more to discuss, I suppose.  I hope that’s not your attitude. 

The whole point of the A week is for atheists to NOT behave like victims. It’s in part to stand up and say we’re fed up with that. Your derision about acting like victims sounds like you wish we’d go back to that. Nope.

As for whichever Tim or both Tims who say they bear me no ill will, thank you. I bear NEITHER of you any ill will. My strident tone is from frustration, not hatred. I’m neither ranting nor am I whining. I’m appealing to you with dignity and yes, with the pride that Jennifer thinks is a bad idea. That’s the rebound from being told for generations that we ought to be ashamed. Of what? Not being convinced?? That’s the fault of your salesmen having a poor sales pitch, and showing up at our doors without their product to show us.

I’m trying to get through your insular, self-confirming ideas about atheists, and convince you that we are real people standing right next to you, not the abstract notions and tired old stereotypes that you have in your heads.  We’re real. We’re not going away. We won’t be silent. Talk to us, or stop pretending that you know us.  Some of us are jerks, like that ex-nephew-in-law. Most of us are decent, thoughtful and caring, and we deserve the same respectful and fair treatment as do all human beings.

That’s enough for me here. I’m sorry, but I don’t have the time to help you understand any more about MY experience as an atheist by way of this very removed medium. If you really are interested, then find at least five living, breathing, 3-dimensional atheists with whom you can talk over coffee for the next few years, rather than disembodied debates online.  THEN you might know a little about what you speak, but you should still qualify your statements as limited to your own experience, and never say that ALL atheists are this, or ALL atheists do that.  Thank you for caring enough to read through my long-winded but earnest appeal. Good bye.

Life became so much better when I realized I had to live this life.  No reward later for being “good”. No God that would punish me for not saying how great he was enought. 

I stole this a while back, it is accurate:

Religion is like a mans private part.  It is Ok to have it. OK to be proud of it.  But don’t wave it around in public and don’t shove it down my throat.

My life is much more complete as I learned the truth.  There is no proof of any god.

Jen, I hope you are not listening to the unkind words coming from that Nora person, especially the charge that you are somehow not genuine.  I have read your blog for some time, came across it when I was feeling called toward a reversion to the Christianity that I grew up with (but thought I was smarter than for most of my adult life), and have always admired your sincerity and real-ness.  I shared your most recent post (Trust School) with my [Lutheran] pastor and she’s going to read the book you discussed, and we may do a small-group study of it at our church.  Your work brings insight and joy to many and it is truly a gift—especially to those of us who have either returned to church or were never there in the first place until God called us later in life.  Thank you so much.

Everyone that makes a stand for one thing is against the opposite thing. To say that Christians don’t have an attitude of “being against” something is nonsense. They are against many things. At one point they killed people who claimed the earth didn’t go around the sun. Today it’s gays, contraception and stem cells. Keep holding us back, Christians. You will be the death of us yet. That is why I am a new atheist.

@Jen. Thank you for the article. It’s thoughtful as always. It’s always tricky for a group to characterize themselves by what they are against rather than what they support. That’s why vegetarians who tout the health and financial benefits of their diet seem to win more fans than the strident ones who make their crusade purely about the meatlessness. You were fairly reasonable and kind, with a dash of humor.

@Nora. Excuse my nosiness, but are you a practicing Catholic or culturally Catholic? The article seemed to touch off a nerve, so I was surprised to read your reply to Tim.

@Daynsby. You’ve vastly oversimplified the issue. If someone says that they are against vanilla ice cream, it does not logically follow that they are for chocolate. Likewise, is every person who stands for animal rights against human rights, or vice versa?

Rich, I’m sorry to see you leave, but I’d like to respond anyway.  It sounds like you haven’t talked or communicated with too many catholics or religious people.  We aren’t foreigners.  We grew up in the same world as atheists, and I seriously doubt that the experiences and feelings of modern catholics and modern atheists aren’t that different.  Our interpretations of those experiences, however, are different.

A went to a big University for my higher education and was around many atheists and agnostics and thought of myself as an agnostic (now I consider myself a catholic).  I imagine many catholics my age had the same experience.  To be honest, their atheism seemed to be only a negative belief (i.e. “I don’t believe in God”).  Point is, most of us are not insular and have known and even been with atheists before.

Daynsby, the Church never killed anyone for claiming the earth didn’t go around the sun (nor did they kill people who claimed the earth revolved around the sun).  The Church is not killing gay people or condoms(?).  The Church also supports adult stem cells (though not embryonic).  I’m not sure what you mean by us holding you back or that we will be the death of you (nobody wants to kill atheists… at least Christians don’t).

Christians are against something by virtue of it being incompatible with the truth.  Christianity is not meant to be against anything, but for the truth.

Rover, in my experience, my life was empty when I didn’t care for God, but only for myself.  It was anything but the truth.

But it’s funny, some of the atheists here are complaining (mistakenly) that this post is telling atheists to stay out of site, but you seem to be saying (with your crude expression) that religious people should stay out of the public.  You can see how these types of contradictions make deciphering atheist beliefs difficult.

“Back in my day, atheists didn’t walk around with signs that said ‘I am an atheist.’ They didn’t put atheist pride stickers on their two-pound cell phones or replace their grainy yearbook photos with a red ‘A.’”
   
Does this sound like the words of someone who’s okay with atheists being public about their atheism?
   
Like Daynsby said, Catholics are against a LOT of things (maybe not to the point of murder, though) - a lot more than any atheist is. Atheists are (on the whole) accepting towards others, no matter their background. Do we get angry at public displays of religion? Only if they are unconstitutional or infringe on the rights of those with other views. No one here is telling religious people to stay out of the public - we’re asking them to simply respect other views. This post is disrespectful and ill-informed, and we find that unacceptable.

@Nora: I think something you are missing from Jen’s posts about her conversion is that perhaps it’s her way of reaching out to people, especially those she might have known in some way before her conversion, to explain things.  Or to offer a perspective as a former atheist.  Let’s face it: she spent more time in life (so far) as an atheist than a Catholic. 

Also, her entire blog is about her spiritual journey, which will likely contain a lot of information about her thought processes and how they’ve changed over the last few years.  That requires the old “as a former atheist…” part.  That, as opposed to “as a mom of a gazillion kids” (just teasing, Jennifer!) or “as someone who wonders why she exchanges Christmas cards with Christine the Soccer Mom…” 

Your comment, whether you meant it or not, came off as extremely uncharitable.  And you shouldn’t use the excuse of “I’m in your Internet World so I’m playing by your rules.”  We’re called to better behavior than that.  Charity at all times, right?  (And I can tell you I’ve had to apologize more than once for my own actions, so don’t take it as pointing fingers so much as what I hope is a gentle correction.)

I, for one, have loved reading Jennifer’s perspectives and comparisons between the two worlds she’s lived in.

(BTW, for the person who asked “Why Catholicism and not Islam?” ... that’s easy!  Because Catholicism is TRUE!  Seekers of Truth will wind up here eventually!)

Michelle,
As a theist, I find your description of atheists misleading.  Of the atheists I have known who were vocal about their beliefs, they were, without exception, gleefully offensive to anyone who didn’t share their belief system.  To them, anyone religious was stupid and bigoted, whether the theist in question was vocal about their belief system or not.  The stupid and bigoted comments would be tossed into an open forum, like a work meeting.  Is being generally offensive to someone whose belief system you don’t share something to be celebrated and flaunted?

On the other hand, the quiet atheists I knew were usually compassionate and empathetic.  However, those would be the ones who wouldn’t have a big A on their facebook pages.

Nora, I think you are being a bit bombastic at the end of your post.  Nothing in Jennifer’s post is objectifying or dehumanizing people who profess to be atheists.  That fact that she is discussing others beliefs (or non-belief)and showing concern for them means she is treating them as people.  It would be worse not to talk about atheists at all, but just ignore them instead… that would be dehumanizing.

Seeing as atheism is more prevalent these days, I’m happy to read posts like Jennifer’s.

“Blogging about your personal journey is fine. God only knows the internet is chock-full of never-ending navel-gazing.” See what she did there? Zzzzzzzinggggg!

Nora, your zingers (aka ad hominem attacks) are only outshone by your ability to create strawmen. The premise of the piece isn’t about how atheists behaved in the past. The premise is that focusing on what you don’t believe is unhealthy as it requires one to approach things from a negative perspective. Now you might not believe Jennifer supported her premise, which is all fine and good, but you can’t make up a premise that doesn’t exist and then refute it and say that you’ve refuted the true premise.

“Also, it’s beyond hypocritical to chastise atheists for identifying as a group as atheists, when your ENTIRE presence on the internet involves, um, identifying yourself as an atheist in a former version of yourself.”

Another strawman. Or maybe equivication. I’m not sure. Anyway, Jennifer is not identifying herself as an atheist. She is identifying herself as a former atheist. Big difference. And I don’t think Jennifer’s post could in anyway be described as chastisement. The definition of chastise is to discipline, especially by corporal punishment, or to criticize severely. If anything the post is a mild suggestion based on her experience. On a side note, what is ‘beyond’ hypocrisy? Have they come up with a new stronger form of hypocrisy and not told me? Hyperpocrisy?

“No one’s milked the “A” label for personal gain more than Ms. Fulwiler.”
evidence, please — or is this just a fictionalized account of her “experience”, a la James Frey?

“when you calculatingly choose to poke away at atheists, naming them, linking to them in your post, in order to serve your own worldly purposes, you’re using people, you’re objectifying them. You’re dehumanizing them. And that’s as uncharitable as it gets.”
And the victim card gets played once again.

Nora, if it’s dehumanizing to make sweeping generalizations about groups, it’s dehumanizing to do the same to individuals, and you have been making some sweeping generalizations about this writer and commenters.  However, neither you or Jennifer are dehumanizing anyone.

@Tim The Other: I like the name.

Nora, I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear but I was not accusing you of being a victim or of claiming to be a victim. I was pointing out that in your beneficence toward the atheist community (or non-community depending on which atheist you talk to) you described atheists in a way that makes them appear to be victims. So I guess I’m accusing you of patronizing atheists by characterizing them as victims of the big mean blogger.

Nora, I’m getting confused about what you take issue with.  It seems she has invited atheists to dialogue, it’s just that she takes a critical view of atheism (is she supposed to deceive atheists into a conversation?).  Judging by the comments, it drew atheists in and there was a conversation (at least a semblance of one).

I don’t know where you are getting this idea that the writer is some sort of opportunist.  I’m not sure if she received money for this article, but even if she did, there’s nothing immoral for getting paid for one’s work.

By the way, it was kind of nasty to equate the writer with your bigoted in-laws.

“I’m accusing the blogger of using atheists to promote herself.”

You could have saved a whole lot of typing by making that your first comment, Nora. :]

And just a tiny point. If in being ‘used’ the atheists aren’t “suffering from a destructive or injurious action or agency” then what is the big deal? If they aren’t ‘victims’ of Jennifer’s blog post then what is the complaint? No harm, no foul.

@Nora.  Sorry, Tim is a very common name.

I don’t think the Church is being cheapened and that you shouldn’t be angry.  Obviously this conversation has run it’s course, but I disagree that Jennifer is elevating herself above the Church or calling attention to herself.  I find her posts interesting and hope to read more in the future (whether about atheism or something else).

@Nora: If you look back at Jen’s earliest posts, when she was more agnostic, she did a lot of dialogging on religious questions.  After her conversion, I think her audience shifted a lot more to confident Catholics and mommybloggers, so the kind of engagement you’re looking for isn’t going to happen in that environment.  You might want to look back in her Reluctant Atheists/Et Tu archives, which are linked in her main blog.

As an atheist, I disagree with Jen and think it’s important for atheists to be visible as atheists, especially since there are a lot of misconceptions/smears against us.  I went on longer about it at: http://www.unequally-yoked.com/2011/03/proud-to-be-atheist.html.  That said, Jen’s got a point about the nastiness that negativity and disdain can inculcate in us, and I think the atheist community has to work harder to fight this tendency (again, I went on longer about that here: http://www.unequally-yoked.com/2011/03/how-should-i-call-out-nasty-atheists.html).

Thanks for the food for thought!

Well lets check the transcript on what an American President had to say about non-belivers.

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?

Bush: “I guess I’m pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.”

Sherman: “Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?”

GHW Bush: “No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.”

Where’s that in the consitution?

Okay, this has seriously devolved now.

@DHC: Kindly post a link to that transcript.  Otherwise, I’m going to just assume you made it up to be inflammatory.  Because that is one of the strangest things I’ve ever heard.

When George Bush was campaigning for the presidency, as incumbent vice-president, one of his stops was in Chicago, Illinois, on August 27, 1987. At O’Hare Airport he held a formal outdoor news conference. There Robert I. Sherman, a reporter for the American Atheist news journal, fully accredited by the state of Illinois and by invitation a participating member of the press corps covering the national candidates, had the following exchange with then-Vice-President Bush.

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?

Bush: I guess I’m pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I’m just not very high on atheists.

Link, though?  There is no link? I suppose I could look for the journal online somehow, or in microfiche, but better citation would help.  The date, etc. is helpful, to be sure, but better citation will give credence to it. 

Still seems odd, though.  The exchange has to be recorded somewhere accessible, right?

“‘This is one nation under God.’ Where’s that in the Constitution?”

Well it isn’t in the Constitution since that was simply a framework for what the mechanics of the government of the nation would look like. I guess technically those words are in the Pledge of Allegiance which I know some consider passe in this brave new world and it probably isn’t binding but it does support Mr. Bush’s statement. Of course the Declaration of Independence, which many consider part and parcel of the documents establishing this nation, does say “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” So the basic premise that the nation is established ‘under God’ is certainly arguable if not blatently obvious. Still, even if an atheist doesn’t believe in a ‘Creator’, the founders believed atheists had a Creator and therefore were citizens. So I’d have to say Mr. Bush was half wrong. Atheists should be considered citizens. But since they can’t believe in the founding authority professed by the founding fathers the argument that they could be “patriots” is a little harder to make, in my opinion.

Still seems odd, though.  The exchange has to be recorded somewhere accessible, right?

No not really when you think back, it is from the pre-internet age of 1987. 
Such events were recorded by the local TV stations at best, and on big analog tapes (long since reused or stuck in a boxes) that are now hard to access.

“Atheists should be considered citizens. But since they can’t believe in the founding authority professed by the founding fathers the argument that they could be “patriots” is a little harder to make, in my opinion.”

Really?  Athesis ARE citizens.  We pay taxes, serve in the military, and vote just like everyone else - we simply believe in one less god then mono-theists.

So who is this higher authority? I can’t be sure which god is the authority the FF were refering to?

I recall that there was a time that JFK had to explain that he would not be beholden to the Vatican (being a foreign thing and all) if elected.

“The Bush/atheist quote is pretty controversial. Seems like there is no verifiable source for it outside the interviewer’s account of the exchange.”

So the level of proof is similar to the evendence for the god of the bible?

@dch: I’m not sure how an opinion a former President held over 30 years ago is relevant, but it’s nice information anyway. 

I’d give that zinger two and half stars.  It would have been better if you had an emocon :).

“Athesis ARE citizens.”
And thus, should be considered citizens. Thanks for putting a fine point on my point.

“So who is this higher authority? I can’t be sure which god is the authority the FF were refering to?”
It doesn’t matter who they were referring to or what you name the First Cause or Prime Mover. The point is they believed that men were creatures (created things) rather than beings that just popped into being magically out of nothing (See Hawkings claim that the universe was created out of nothing and extrapolate to the final evolution of man and you’ve got man magically popping into existence.) So if they were created they must have had a creator. It just stands to reason. So, whatever you name this creator and whatever myths and stories you believe about this creator (or don’t believe) that is the creator they are talking about.

“You know, Tim(s), it makes me angry to see the Church cheapened so. Seriously. That’s pretty much why this kind of shallow, obvious, self-seeking stuff bothers me so.”

Nora, can you explain how your judgementalism and lack of charity elevates the Church; and can you also explain what evidence you have to support your accusation of shallowness, self-promotion, etc?

I am sincerely bewildered at the viciousness of your repeated attacks on Jennifer’s work.

Mouse,
 
Really? All of the outspoken atheists I know (and that makes up a large number of the people I know) are nothing but polite to religious people. We do often discuss the harm we feel religion has done and the aspects of the beliefs we find ridiculous, but we know that no one gains anything from rude discourse or attempts at “conversion.” How many outspoken atheists have you seen be directly offensive to a religious person? Religious or not, there’s never an excuse for rudeness - and polite disagreement is NOT rude, on either side of the discussion. I think you’ll find that most atheists agree on this.
 
Outspoken atheists typically are outspoken in that they are proud to be atheists and they aren’t afraid to identify with that label. Outspoken Christians I have met are most often just the same - they happily identify as Christian, and there’s nothing at all wrong with that (unless they try to force their religion on you, which I have found is rare). Where’s the difference?

“Just because the founding fathers believed all men have a Creator doesn’t mean any citizen of this country is obligated to believe the same thing in order to be considered a “patriot”.”

That wasn’t my argument Nora. I said it would be difficult to argue one was a “patriot” if one did not believe in the principles outlined in the founding documents. It would be like arguing that you were a good socialist even though you didn’t believe anything written in the Communist Manifesto. You might do things that make you look like a good socialist but if you don’t believe in the foundations of socialism then you are at the very least an opportunist taking advantage of whatever benefits attach to a good socialist or at worst a hypocrite who doesn’t live their own beliefs. That said, I don’t think it is impossible for an atheist to believe everyone who magically popped into existence did so on an equal basis or that they also inexplicably have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I’m just saying I think it is a harder case to make that they can be “patriots” than that they are citizens.

“Some of the founding fathers believed it was perfectly fine to own slaves. Doesn’t mean I have to believe the same thing to prove my patriotism.”

I don’t see the connection, Nora. The founding fathers didn’t institute, condone, or justify slavery in the founding documents so no one needs to believe it to be considered a “patriot”.

Okay Nora I didn’t think you could out-bombast yourself but the “tantamount to hate speech” line had me rolling on the floor. Thanks for the belly laugh. And just to be clear, I have never said that atheists couldn’t be patriots. I simply said that if one were to argue the premise, pro and con, it would be a harder argument to make than the argument that atheists were citizens.

I’m not sure what to think of the non-sequitur about the context and style of the founding father’s writing. I don’t see what that has to do with anything I said.

“You’re also missing the point…” Apparently I’m not missing the point because your words basically mimic what I said about the founding fathers,that since they did believe in a creator, they considered “all men to be created equal” without concern with what those men believed. You are arguing my point for me.

“What makes someone a patriot or not is their behavior, not some belief. An American patriot is someone who defends the rights of every citizen of this nation REGARDLESS of his or her personal beliefs.” Ahhh! Very good. The first step in having fruitful discussions is to agree on a definition and this is the first definition I’ve seen on this discussion. We are making progress. That said, if I accept your definition, it appears at first blush, and without extensive parsing of the definition, that an atheist can be a patriot. However, if they act against what they believe or profess to believe that still makes them a hypocrite, doesn’t it?

Michelle,

Specifically, there were three at my place of employment at different times (high turn-over rate) and two at my college.  Those were the “loud and proud” atheists who disparaged any and all religions at every possible opportunity.  Quite frankly, there could have been many well-mannered atheists there as well, but I don’t tend to engage folks in talk about religion unless they bring it up.  It was the offensive ones that left lasting memories.

For examples of the type of atheist I am referring to, skim the comments of the articles Danielle Bean writes for WaPo.  If she says anything about religion (like commenting on the ritual of ashes on Ash Wednesday), inevitably there will be confrontational, snarky comments about what stupid, bigoted hypocrites Christians and/or anyone who remotely believes in some sort of deity, are. 

I’m sure many of you, like Leah @Unequally Yoked, are polite and non-confrontational.  Unfortuneately, it’s the loud ones that remain in the memory.

As an atheist, I do have a belief that defines me.  I believe religion and superstition has been an evil that has permeated our society for far too long, has caused untold suffering for many people, and are based on lies. I define myself as someone who strives for society to shed it’s death culture, and embrace life.

@Nora. Thank you for answering. Mind if I ask you a question? As a Catholic, how do you engage or explain your faith to atheists or to those who would disparage it. You appear to disapprove of Jennifer’s recommended posts and I’m unable to find any posts of yours in reply to the atheists.

@dawkinsassange. Interesting that you write that that a great motivation behind your atheism is a rejection of the “death culture”. The church calls for embracing a culture of life, which is the reason behind the ban on abortion, birth control and suicide, as well as no experiments on embryos, not to mention the emphasis on charitable giving, missionary work and resurrection.

@Nora—you didn’t answer my questions.

@Nora

I think you may have replied to Erika’s questions but I’m not convinced that you answered them. That is a difference, which as evidenced from your comments, that you don’t seem to recognize.

@dawkinsassange said “I do have a belief that defines me…etc.”

The assumption is you hold these beliefs because you believe they are true. I think all that anyone is asking is that you back up your truth claims with evidence and reason that proves those truth claims and listen honestly to evidence and reason that might disprove those truth claims. Otherwise you are just arguing points that support your subjective opinion and no one who is interested in determining the objective truth of reality is interested in subjective opinion.

Jennifer is your sole existence to troll the !@#$% out of Atheists?  You are quite effective at it.

@Nora - Yes. It drives my wife and children up the wall. But I do believe that if we don’t agree on the meaning of words and use those words as agreed upon then we are all just speaking foreign languages that none of us completely understand. And without understanding there is no path for us to objective truth, which in my opinion is the only truth worth seeking.

@Andy - Calling the kettle black. Nice trolling technique. Three stars!

@Tim, definitely, but still you have to admit, in the last week she’s written highly inflammatory pieces with what I consider to be little perspective. First, a post saying that the key to Catholic’s understanding of Atheists is that we secretly need God’s love and we just don’t know it, and then this one that declares that because we don’t put magical deities before us we have an unhealthy worldview.

@Andy - I am not required to admit to anything of the kind. It seems to me she wrote two interesting pieces from her perspective and they should be taken as such. One does not have to agree with them but I don’t believe there is any reason to become inflamed by them. She stated her premise and supported it with personal experience. Feel free to refute the premise in the comments or on your own website or blog.

And everyone knows atheist’s unhealthy world view doesn’t come from not believing in magical deities. It comes from believing that we all magically popped into existence out of nothing.

@Tim, I see you too are excellent at trolling, cheers mate.

@Andy - And here I thought I was just being funny.

http://theosophical.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/stephen-hawking-puts-god-on-unemployment/

Oh gotcha, another theologian claims they can explain the existence of the universe, better then Stephen Hawking.

@Andy - Ah, the old genetic fallacy rears its ugly head. So simply on the basis that the individual is a theologian (and actually I’m not sure that he is, technically) his arguments are invalid? So, no, the piece I linked to doesn’t claim to explain the existence of the universe. The writer simply used logic and reason to show how Stephen Hawking’s claims don’t hold water and basically equate to Hawkings saying that we, the universe, and everything, simply magically popped into being.

The “logic” the author presented was based on assumptions for how the universe works, with no actual observations or scientific reasoning or data to support them.  Stephen Hawking’s observations are based on a lifetime of studying the fundamental laws that govern the universe.

Hmmmmmm

Obviously you read a completely different article or possibly didn’t read it at all. But I like how you scare quoted the word ‘logic’ to imply it wasn’t logic. When in truth much of the “logic” was based on just that. Simple logic. The author makes no assumptions about how the universe works. For example:

“...it is incoherent to claim the universe can create itself. For the universe to create itself it would literally have to exist before it existed. But if it existed before it existed, it would have no need of creating itself because it would already exist. Self-causation is incoherent.”

“...while Hawking is attempting to explain how something could come from nothing, he only explains how something (the universe) comes from something else (physical laws, namely gravity).  True nothingness is the absence of any and all existents, including physical laws. So from whence come the physical laws?”

Nice try but you’ll only convince those people who don’t go and read the article.

So, Tim, what you’re saying is that if science can’t explain something, that means god must have done it? Your god of the gaps isn’t very impressive… and he keeps shrinking.

No Aaron, in fact I’m not arguing that there is or isn’t a God (of the Gaps or anything else). My point, which even if I were an atheist would be the same, is that what Hawking is saying does not make logical sense and therefore is equivalent to saying that the universe magically popped into existence out of nothing.

Your attempt to build a straw man out of the god of the gaps was a nice try though. Keep spouting those scripted atheist talking points. It is a lot easier than thinking for yourself.

Atheism is ordered toward rejection and pride, where as positive-principle-based belief systems are ordered toward acceptance and humility

Atheism is lack of belief in deities.  It’s not a belief system.  That’s like saying not believing in the tooth fairy is a negative belief system ordered toward rejection and pride.  Yeah, I guess if rejecting made-up stuff is rejection, then atheism is rejection, and yeah, if accepting some story about a guy who is supposedly also God without any sort of valid evidence is acceptance and humility, then that’s what Christianity is about. 

And to the person that thought Jen wants to dialogue with atheists, I don’t think so.  She wants to write her opinions and let her fans do the dialoguing for her.  She very, very rarely responds to comments on her own blog, especially from those who disagree with her. 

It seems like Nora is the only Catholic here that has a realistic view of what Jen is doing. 

And everyone knows atheist’s unhealthy world view doesn’t come from not believing in magical deities. It comes from believing that we all magically popped into existence out of nothing.

Nope.  First of all, “everyone” doesn’t accept that atheism is an unhealthy worldview.  How is it unhealthy, specifically?  My health isn’t compromised by my lack of belief in a deity. 

Secondly, who says atheists believe we “magically” popped into existence out of nothing?  By “we” do you mean humans?  Humans came into existence as a result of millions of years of evolution. 

Or by “we” do you mean the universe itself?  I have no idea where the universe came from if it came from anywhere at all.  Perhaps it has always existed, forever collapsing onto itself and expanding, “big bang” style.  It doesn’t really matter to me.  I have to pay my mortgage, regardless.  Atheists generally don’t believe in magic.

But know that you’re heading down a dangerous path if you spend more time thinking about what you are against than what you embrace.

Who says atheists spend more time thinking about what we are against than what we embrace?  I rarely think of my lack of belief at all.  It’s only when I stumble across articles dealing with religion that I think about it.  Just like I don’t spend hours and hours thinking about why I don’t believe in unicorns.  Just because you spend so much time thinking about your religion doesn’t mean I spend an equal amount of time thinking about my lack of one. 

Certainly some atheists make a big thing of it, but that doesn’t mean most do.  Kind of like some Catholics, who spend their time writing blogs and guest posts, and books and constantly talking about their religion.  Just because they are annoying and self-important (while strangely enough, making frequent mention about how important humility is to them) doesn’t mean all Catholics are annoying and self-important.  Of course those are the ones we hear from on both sides of the fence, because that’s the type of person that writes articles and blogs and books!  Humble people don’t need to do that.  Regardless, I don’t see how being a noisy atheist is “dangerous path.”  It’s just annoying to those of us having to witness it.  Let me guess—you watch FOX news.  They’re big on trying to frighten people. 

With all other belief systems, adherents submit to something higher than themselves. Christians, Muslims, Jews, even Secular Humanists set their sights on a positive set of principles that supersedes their own personal whims. This is good. This is healthy. By directing your energy toward overarching values to which you willingly submit, it acts as a check against the natural human urge to turn yourself into a god.

Why is setting one’s sights on a set of principles based on fairy tales (religion) healthy, but basing one’s values on personal experience and rational thought unhealthy?  And how can I turn myself into a deity (god) if I don’t believe in deities?  I don’t worship a god, and I don’t worship myself.  I just live my life.

I love it when smug, self-righteous theists attempt to explain my belief system to me. Especially the vapid intellectual lightweights.

For me, being an atheist is not a choice.  Rather it is a consequence of a choice:  A moral choice.  I have made the moral choice to attempt to apply rational, evidenced-based thinking techniques to the big questions in my life.  As a result of these practices, I have decided to simply admit that I don’t know the answers to many of life’s big questions (“where did the universe come from?” ” Where does consciousness come from?” And “What happens when you die?” are all good examples).  Because the answer to these questions is “I don’t know,” I am morally obligated to stop there and simply admit my own ignorance.
However, this is not what theists do.  What theists do to claim to have answers to these big questions in a dishonest attempt to cover up their own ignorance.  Then they claim moral superiority by insisting that the stories that they use to confuse themselves offer them some special insights into the will of a divine authority.  This is a fundamentally dishonest and therefore immoral practice.
This bizarre behavior by theists results in some truly grotesque excuses for human morality.  Some Judeo/Christian examples include:
•  The idea that the torture and murder of a person (or deity) can result in your salvation if you just believe in the magic strongly enough (the doctrine of vicarious redemption).
•  The idea that genocide is good if a divine authority orders it (The battle of Jericho).
•  The idea that natural disaster is a form of divine punishment (Japan comes to mind).
•  The idea that lighting your children on fire helps them (Nigerian witch burning).

This is not to say that religious traditions lack all moral compass – in fact there are many great moral truths available in most religions (the sermon on the mount comes to mind).  The problem with religion is that it literally has NO OBLIGATION to relate itself to objective reality in any meaningful way.  In fact the whole idea that faith is a virtue is the bizarre idea that ignoring reality is somehow morally virtuous.  I believe that we are moral in spite of religion, not because of it. 

I do not hold that faith is a virtue.  I believe that I am morally obligated to create a worldview that is as realistic as possible, because without that I have no way to tell how virtuous I am being.  With that goal in mind, the only reliable standard by which to measure my worldview is evidence.  Evidence has a long track record of being a reliable standard for truth.  Religion offers a morality that is unhinged from evidence or any kind of measure of human suffering.  Instead, it identifies morality as being congruent with nothing more than the will of the divine dictator.  As the saying goes:

“If I can make you believe the incredible, I can make you do the unthinkable.”

God is the ultimate sock puppet.  So long as I can make you believe that god wants you to do something, I can get you to do ANYTHING.  This is why religious ideology is morally bankrupt.
So why do we have religion?  It’s a human universal and must serve some purpose.  Personally, I think that religion is really all about privilege.  In fact, religion is a wonderful human invention, at least as powerful and dynamic as money.   
  Consider this:  Human beings are basically a tribal species.  If you are like most people, at any given time, you can maintain a meaningful emotional relationship with one or two lovers and perhaps a dozen or so friends.  In addition, you can maintain a loose affiliation with about a hundred people whose names you kind of remember most of the time, and who you consider yourself to be acquaintances with.  For most of us these days, this means we have a lover or two, a circle of friends, and a bunch of co-workers.

Now let’s add a religion into the mix.  Let’s say Catholicism (but any religion will do).  All of a sudden all sorts of doors open up, don’t they?  You can consider yourself Catholic, and you can walk into any Catholic church in the world and get quickly indoctrinated into the local social scene, by engaging in standardized rituals that extend across the religion.  You can join a whole new tribe across the world, and quickly get your basic needs met, and even gain access to business opportunities, jobs and potential mates.

In addition you get to do this while enjoying the lovely story that you and the other Catholics are going to be hanging out with God in heaven (kickin’ it old-school) while the rest of us burn for our sins - that is, “WE” are going to be in the privileged divine in-group, and “THEY” are left out.  Essentially what religion has done for you, is it has let you extend your tribal affiliation to a MUCH larger circle of people than is normally possible, and as a result you gain access to resources and opportunities that you would never have otherwise benefited from.
In addition, the religion itself becomes a social institution and as such, it can gain resources and political influence that can span generations, so that over time it becomes more and more powerful and more and more difficult to do without.

No WONDER people defend their faith so strongly!

And all you had to do is give up a little bit of integrity didn’t you?  All you had to do was believe the unbelievable.  It’s like a golden ticket into Willie Wonka’s Chocolate Factory.  Heck, if you were brought up in the religion you might not ever even realize that you were buying into a fairy tale.

Seems like a pretty good deal to me.  It’s really too bad my ethics keep me from drinking that cool-aid.  It seems like a nice life.  Ah well.

@Paul
Finally, an atheist that will admit that their belief system is based on ignorance! Now we are getting somewhere. :]

Rather than try to refute all the points you’ve made I would simply like to question the premise that you seem to base the whole of your arguments on. The fact that you have made a “moral” choice. I question how you can make a “moral” choice that is based on something that cannot be proven with evidence. Objective definitions of “good” and “evil” cannot be derived from the scientific method. Therefore your “moral” choice is based simply on a subjective feeling you have about what is good or bad. And just because others might agree with you doesn’t make it scientifically or objectively true. And since it is subjective, other people don’t have to agree with you on what is good or bad or that good or bad even exist. So why do you cling to your little fairy tale of “morality”? Maybe so you can claim moral superiority by insisting that the science that you use to confuse yourself offers you some special insights into how the universe works? Seems like a nice life.

Tim said:  Finally, an atheist that will admit that their belief system is based on ignorance! Now we are getting somewhere. :]

It’s not that knowledge is based on ignorance.  It’s just that paradoxically, it’s only by being honest with yourself about what you don’t know that you can get down to any truth about what you do know.  So, when I say “I don’t know where the universe came from” I’m paradoxically stating a fact.  I can count on that fact as reliable, at least until new information comes in to change what I know.

Tim said:  “I question how you can make a “moral” choice that is based on something that cannot be proven with evidence.”

Moral choices are not evidence based, or even necessarily rational.  Moral choices are made out of emotional assessments as to what is good or valued.  This form of thinking requires a different process from factual claims and evidence-based reasoning.  Evidence based reasoning can help you discover what is true, but figuring out what is good is another matter.

I am making a moral value judgment that being honest (especially being honest with myself) is a moral good.  I have decided to hold this moral value as a “good” because I have observed that denial, rationalization and self-deception tend to create and/or prolong suffering, and I make the value judgment that suffering is usually bad, and unnecessary suffering is especially bad.  This is a value judgment however, and not a statement of fact. 

You seem to want morality to be fact-based.  In other words you seem to want morality to be objective.  I don’t think there is such a thing as objective morality.  I have been studying moral psychology for a couple of years now, and my impression is that morality is a subjective psychological process that we do to manage our relationships with each other.  I believe that evolution has equipped us with a system of emotional responses that predispose us toward moral behavior and that these moral behaviors are then culturally educated in much the same way that we are predisposed to learn speech, but culturally educated to speak a specific language.  For this reason, there will always be disagreements between people about what is right and wrong.  After all, different cultures educate their children differently.

Tim said: “Maybe so you can claim moral superiority by insisting that the science that you use to confuse yourself offers you some special insights into how the universe works?”

No you have this backwards.  Science is a set of tools that one might use to understand the world, and it does indeed provide special insights about how the universe works (that’s it’s for after all).  The findings of science are cool and they do indeed give us insights that are much more amazing than your puny religion ever dreamed up. 

That said, I can’t claim to be morally superior to you because I don’t know you.  However I do believe that self-honesty is morally superior to self-deception.  I can also say that I think that faith is a form of self-deception.  So I would say that in my judgment I am working a more moral process than you are.  Faith is a poor excuse for moral reasoning, but I understand that most people don’t have the time and energy to do a lot of philosophy, so I can see why it’s an attractive short-cut.

Quick lesson:
Moral value judgments are one thing.  Facts are another.  The Abrahamic worldview confuses the two.  Think about the words: “That is wrong”
This could mean: “That is incorrect” or
It could mean: “That is immoral”
So we use the same words to describe two ideas with important differences.
Here in the West, we tend to conflate these two meanings, even though one is a statement of fact and one is a statement of judgment.  The Abrahamic faiths confuse facts with authority on the one hand, and facts with judgment on the other.  This isn’t your fault, they are easy to confuse, but it is your responsibility to educate yourself in basic reasoning skills.

For example, it is factually wrong to assert that you KNOW that there is a god and it is factually wrong to assert that you KNOW what God values.  You can only factually state that you would LIKE TO BELIEVE that God exists and that he wants this or that, but you can’t KNOW any such thing, since knowledge requires some kind of evidence to back it up, and the word of an authority (like the bible) does not constitute evidence.  Heck, I don’t know what my girlfriend wants half the time, and I at least know that she exists.  You can’t even prove that God exists, so how can you use him to define morality?

But notice how important this difference is – if Moses told you that he KNEW God wanted you to kill all the Canaanites, you might do it, but if he told you that HE WOULD LIKE TO BELIEVE that God wanted you to kill all the Canaanites you would probably tell him to piss off. 

BIG DIFFERENCE, no?

When you use God to explain morality all you are really doing is shucking responsibility for your own moral values onto the divine sock-puppet.  This is a dodge, since you are refusing to take responsibility for your own moral judgment by putting words into God’s mouth.  Sack up and tell us what you believe is moral yourself, and stop using God to give weight to your words.

It’s dishonest.

And that’s just wrong.

Paul said: You seem to want morality to be fact-based.

No, from your previous post I got the impression that you wanted morality to be fact-based when you said “I have made the moral choice to attempt to apply rational, evidenced-based thinking techniques to the big questions in my life.” Apparently determining the difference between good and evil is not a big question because if it was you would have to admit to yourself that you didn’t know what was good or evil and would have to stop there and admit to your ignorance. I was pointing out the illogic of making a value judgement to base your philosophy only on evidence based reason.

So, it appears that the gist and pith of your comment is that morality is subjective whether you are an atheist or not but that your morality is more moral because your non-evidence based value system is better than my non-evidence based value system. Hmmmm

Tim you continue to confuse knowledge with judgment.  When I speak of morality I am offering my judgment.  I can use evidence and theory to support my judgment, but at the end of the day, it’s still a matter of judgment.

The opposite of objective knowledge is fantastical belief NOT subjective knowledge.  There is no such thing as subjective knowledge.  There is subjective experience but that’s not the same thing.

The opposite of moral judgment is dogmatic ideology, NOT subjective morality.  Obedience to divine authority is a dogmatic ideology.  There is no such thing as subjective morality (or objective morality for that matter).

Both moral judgment and dogmatic ideology are human mental strategies. It is a category error to apply the terms “objective” or “subjective” to these strategies. These terms apply to perceptions, not strategies. 

If I were to say “I have am subjectively trying to feed my family by working for a living.”  It’s a weird statement, because the term “subjective” doesn’t make sense in this context.  In the same way, you are trying to pin me down to having “subjective morality” Morality is a strategy for getting along with my fellow human beings.  This judgment is one component of my moral behavior.  I have to use judgment to negotiate complex social interactions, but it is only one component.

An important second component is emotional buy-in.  The emotional component to moral reasoning is intuitive, irrational and instantaneous.  I often have strong emotional responses to morally objectionable stimulus.  These emotional response systems are components of my psychological make-up that appear to be largely biologically driven.  For example, children exhibit empathy before language use.  They also exhibit obedience to authority.  These emotional systems evolved because getting me to cooperate with my fellow humans is ITSELF a strategy of my DNA to perpetuate itself.  It does this by wiring me with an emotional response system and with the ability to learn how to use this emotional response system in the context of my relationships with others. 

Because of these two systems (and maybe others) morality is not something people DO, it is not an object that one can measure, nor is it a quality that one possesses (although it does have consequences on one’s psychological development to be sure).

Objective/subjective are simply meaningless adjectives to use when discussing morality.  You might as well be talking about having a yellow pain in your foot - it’s not a valid idea.

Tim Said “...your morality is more moral because your non-evidence based value system is better than my non-evidence based value system. Hamm”

In my judgment, yes.  It’s more honest.  And I value honesty as a moral good.

I also value insight.  To this end, I want to offer you and your fellow Catholics an insight – we appear to be hard-wired to follow authority as one of our moral intuitions.  Is it possible that this moral instinct is at least partially responsible for your belief in God?  What if God is just a character in a story that you use to justify your personal moral identity? 

How much work would it take to re-think your whole sense of self so that you could be moral without God?  And if the answer is “a hell of a lot of work,” can you really afford to believe anything else?

Paul, I’ve got to tell you I think you’re playing fast and loose with some of your definitions in order to make your logic work but rather than trying to parse your whole comment I’ll just list what basic “truth claims” you seem to be making and you can tell me if I am understanding you or not. So this is what I’m getting from your last comment:

1) People are biological machines programmed by their DNA to act in ways that will help their DNA to survive.  - “These emotional systems evolved because getting me to cooperate with my fellow humans is ITSELF a strategy of my DNA to perpetuate itself. It does this by wiring me with an emotional response system and with the ability to learn how to use this emotional response system in the context of my relationships with others.”

2) Morality is simply one of the mechanisms wired into us by our DNA to help us survive and therefore for our DNA to survive. - “Morality is a strategy for getting along with my fellow human beings.” Also see quote from 1) above.

3) The mechanisms wired into you by your DNA is superior to the mechanisms wired into religious people by their DNA. - “In my judgment, yes.  It’s more honest.  And I value honesty as a moral good.” Also see quotes from 1) and 2) above.

4) There is no such thing as objective truth. (Although you don’t come right out and say this it seems to be the under current of your comments. If I am mistaken and you are not making this truth claim I would love to hear your views on objective truth.)

Am I understanding you correctly?

“defining yourself by what you are against isn’t psychologically healthy.”

I assume that Jennifer doesn’t believe in Zeus, Vishnu or Allah…. are those beliefs psychologically healthy???

Atheists are very much FOR rational thought and critical thinking. Somerthing this country is sorely lacking.

What a silly article…..

‘“defining yourself by what you are against isn’t psychologically healthy.”I assume that Jennifer doesn’t believe in Zeus, Vishnu or Allah…. are those beliefs psychologically healthy???”’

I don’t believe Jennifer claimed to define herself as anti-Zeusian, anti-Vishnuian or anti-anything else. Rational thought and critical thinking should make it obvious that just by defining one self by what one believes, while automatically meaning there are very many things that one doesn’t believe, it doesn’t follow that one is therefore defining oneself by those things not believed. Defining oneself is an active process. Those things that fall outside of ones belief system do so passively unless one decides to include ones non-belief in ones self definition.

Ok, Tim, we started with some epistemology and ethics, and now we are getting into metaphysics.  That’s a lot of ground for a few posts, but I’ll give it a whirl.  I’ll list your points by number.

1)    People are not machines.  Life is not simply mechanistic.  The universe appears to operate as a massively complex system of interacting processes.  While many of these processes are explainable in mechanistic terms, calling organisms machines de-emphasizes some pretty important processes that the machine metaphor misses, including reproduction, learning, adaptation and so forth.  Note that this sounds like materialism but it’s not.  It’s a theory operating out of a branch of philosophy called process metaphysics.

Similarly evolution is a broad label for a complex series of processes which include important feedback loops and so forth.  For example, humans evolved to be able to produce and benefit from culture.  Culture in turn differentially selects for biological traits.  So there is a feedback loop that falls under the rubric of “evolution” There are other such feedbacks.
  So the gist of this point is right, but the details are more subtle than what you are laying down.

2)  A person’s moralistic responses operate out of a complex interaction between emotional systems related to biological structures in the brain (this is where DNA comes in), personal experiences (often imprinted at an early age), brain development, decisions made by the person in life, and cultural training.  The probably are also effected by other unknowns such as epigenetics, environmental toxins and other stuff.  So it’s not “simply” anything, however how one responds to moral dilemmas does differentially affect one’s chances to survive and reproduce.  Over time, the biological component of human moral responses is likely to gravitate toward an evolutionarily stable state.  This in part accounts for the conflicted nature of human moral response – we are conflicted between selfish short-term interest, and cooperative long-term interests (among other things).

3)  No no no.  You have this one all wrong.  The mechanisms wired into me are probably very similar to the mechanisms wired into you (we are the same species and I doubt either one of us is a sociopath).  What I am saying is that the STORY that you tell yourself about morality completely unhinged from reality, and that this makes the morality that you derive from it dangerous to the extent that it unrealistic. 
I’m going to assume that the main difference between you and me is that you believe that morality is defined by a divine authority and that I believe that morality is an emergent property of biological and cultural systems.  These are very different stories, and they have very different consequences.  There are two consequences that frankly scare me about your story 1)  The (dishonest) idea that pretending you know something that you clearly don’t is somehow a virtue and 2) The idea that once you know what the divine authority wants, you can and should do what he says.
These two consequences are exactly the sort of thought processes that cause people to fly airplanes into buildings. 
4)  I’m staying away from “objective truth” for now.  I think that there is probably such a thing as an “objective universe” but I think that human beings are clearly very limited in our ability to perceive it.  That said, there is a cop-out that I see theist do a lot, and it goes like this:

a.  “Since human beings are limited, then why not believe in God?” 

The problem with this is that basically you can substitute ANYTHING in the place of God. 
b.  “Since human beings are limited, why not believe in flying invisible pink unicorns that fart rainbows?” 

See what I mean?  Theists like to hide In the shadow of doubt – it’s like, since we can’t know EVERYTHING it therefore gives you permission to believe whatever you want.  That’s a cop-out. 

Here is a fact that you just can’t get around:  “I don’t know”

Live it.  Love it.  Embrace it.  “I don’t know” are the three most powerful words in the English language.  They will set you free.  The bible says that the truth will set you free, and the bible is sometimes right.  This is one of those times.  When you admit that the true answers to the big questions is “I don’t know” then the priest class has no more power over you, and they will need to go out and find real jobs.  Faith is a con-man’s wet dream.

In the mean time you can go right on loving your family, paying your taxes and supporting your community.  All you need to do is admit this simple truth to yourself and embrace all the implications of it. 

Ok, I admit that does sound like a lot of work, but I promise you it is very rewarding.

BTW, I always have to laugh at the whoe “athiest pride” nonsense.  I mean, how much pride does it take to believe that you have a magic book writen by the creator of the universe? 

How much pride does it take to believe that he came to earth to be tortured to death as a part of a magical ritual that was designed to make you live forever if you just believe in the magic strongly enough?

I mean PRIDE?

forgetaboutit!!!

Paul, for someone who thinks honesty is a virtue you seem to have no problem mischaracterizing people’s religious beliefs in order to make them sound unreasonable. Is this because you don’t actually know what people believe so it is easy believe the one dimensional charicatures you assign to other people’s beliefs. If you were to be honest with yourself you would at least have to admit that peoples religious beliefs, even if wrong, are just as nuanced and/or convoluted as your beliefs.

“New Media Catholic on Wednesday, Mar 23, 2011 11:33 AM (EDT)wrote:Atheists are just insecure about the fact that they can’t explain “why” they’re ethical, especially if there is no god to be accountable to.”  Hypothetical and question. Atheist and believer simultaneously find large stash of cash (independently, and same amount). Both turn it into the cops.  Who is more ethical?  Someone who does it out of fear of retribution or someone who does it because, by extension, that is how they would like to be treated if they lost the cash?  I don’t understand ethics in the context of someone (some being) watching over your shoulder.  It would seem to me that ethics would require that to be absent.  I don’t think, as a non-believer, that i would have much trouble explaining ‘why’ i am ethical or act ethically (or try to anyways).

Terry, although the line you quote does seem to make it a case of being watched by God I don’t think that is a good explanation of what Catholics believe. I believe what the quote is getting at, however poorly, is that Catholics believe there is such a thing as ‘objective good’ and that ‘objective good’ is God or is a nature of God (hence the phrase “God is Good”). This ‘objective good’ is what Catholics base their ethics/morality on. Since atheists don’t believe in God it follows that they don’t believe in an ‘objective good’ or in other words a good that applies to all and exists whether or not humans exist. Now obviously atheists can do and be good but their ‘good’ is a ‘subjective good’ and is therefore arbitrary and has no basis so they can’t explain “why” they think something is good without basing it on subjective criteria. I’m probably not explaining it much better but that is my attempt. You can read more about objective good here: https://philososphere.wordpress.com/tag/objective-good/ and probably a bunch of other places on the web.

I found this article to be bigoted. Its very title is: “The Danger of Atheist Pride”. If you wonder why people are offended by it, ask yourself if “The Danger of Catholic Pride” or “The Danger of Jewish pride” would set off your alarm bells of bigotry. Mrs. Fulwiler makes claims that back in HER day atheists were in the closet. Where, she seems to claim, they belong. For the record, Atheists are not ONLY about being anti-god, as a general rule. They must find what they DO believe. And what should they identify as? There is a religious privilege in society today, despite Mrs. Fulwiler’s claims that there isn’t any bigotry against atheists (I’d point out that the US had a president who publicly said that atheists should not be considered citizens, but somehow I doubt that will convince you, and I’m not going to find the 1,000 examples and post them here). And part of the privilege includes the fact that our words about religion REQUIRES us to identify as Atheist. If you’d prefer, we could start a movement to call ourselves Logicals, and your side therefore the Illogicals, and say you shouldn’t be proud of your faith because it’s faith in the repudiation of logic…but that would seem douchey of us, wouldn’t it? If it helps, equate it to “Christian”. You might be an Episcopalian, a Catholic, a Protestant, etc. But you fall under the greater umbrella. Atheists is the umbrella, and under it is the finer points that we coalesce around. Because we don’t have authority figures per se, to whom we must bow to without question (no infallibility here), we don’t necessarily have more specific labels. The idea that we shouldn’t talk about ourselves because of that is ludicrous and bigoted. And, Tim, ultimately, the Catholics and ALL religious base “the good” on a subjective good…they simply maintain it’s not their own subjective, but God’s. To take the specifically Catholic perspective, if there was an OBJECTIVE good, a good that is irrespective of God’s opinion on the matter, then the Bible has self-falsified itself, as the NT contradicts the OT (death penalty for adulterers, Popes changing the Catechism over time, etc.). One could argue that God’s will is the objective good, so that whatever god says is good specifically because god said it, but then that is subjective to God’s will, which you then have to defend with another slew of arguments that are unsupportable to those without a fundamental belief in what you’re trying to support.

@Christine soccer Mom: While there is no video of Bush Sr.‘s remark about believing Atheists should not be regarded as citizens, but here is a link to the reporter’s site: http://www.robsherman.com/advocacy/060401a.htm. It references documents from the Bush library that prove he actually said it.

“a big departure from the way atheists of previous generations have done things”

They probably said that about slavery and civil rights and the women’s right to vote and ...

“so why did they shy away from the A-word?”

Because of the social stigma from Christians?  And don’t do it in Saudi Arabia!

“a process of constant rejection”

Hilarious projection.  Why should an atheist waste time thinking that way?  What real-life decisions require such thinking?

“as I know from personal experience”

I’m skeptical.  Please provide a link to what you wrote way back then that indicates your actual personal experience.

“markedly nasty tone”

Due to the frustration that so many people refuse to think for themselves.  So-called Young Earth Creationists reject evolution.  What ignorance!

“Atheism is ordered toward rejection and pride”

I reject your opinion as lacking in evidence.  Atheism is ordered towards social reality.  All 7 billion of us are using up the Earth’s resources for better or worse.

“positive-principle-based belief systems”

Scientology?  Islam?  Name one!  All of your real “positive principles” that count could just as easily be secular.  Do unto others ...

“much better for you psychologically”

Quite possibly.  Being led is much easier than thinking for oneself.

“And so, to the folks participating in A Week, I would say one thing: Become Catholic. Well, okay, that probably wouldn’t get me very far, so maybe I’d say something else, too: Be careful about embracing atheism as an identity. Explore the tenets of Secular Humanism, or even some of the atheistic flavors of Buddhism. But know that you’re heading down a dangerous path if you spend more time thinking about what you are against than what you embrace.”

I have explored religious doctrines and cultures. I am scared of them because they persecute me. I have attended rituals practiced by any religious group that I came across because I wanted to understand believers better - I could not understand why in the world people would believe something so utterly ridiculous- I went undercover and I let others talk. All the Christian churches I have been to told me if I were not a Christian I will go to hell. The only religious place that was nice to me was this one Jewish temple. They had great music and good discussion so I will go again. However I was still bullied at school because of my lack of belief in God. I decided to hide my heartfelt feelings. Yes. I will be careful. I will protect my physical health and social connection by hiding my lack of religious belief until the day that I am socially tolerated. I don’t understand why I’ve been given threats and admonitions just because I say I do not attach myself to any religious doctrine. Why is atheism linked to immorality?? I am not more immoral than any catholic christian.
Only those who are brave dare to go to the street and show others that atheists are human too. I am too afraid to do that. America is not the best place for atheists. I embrace Christian people and other humans. I just don’t believe there is or have been an intelligent omniscient designer. Why do you force me to believe it? Why won’t you be my friend unless I say there is such a designer? What’s the difference?