Hemant Mehta's Blog, page 1829

Help Out Some Folks Doing Research on Atheists

Here’s the information:

Professor Catherine Caldwell-Harris of Boston University, and graduate student Thomas J. Coleman III of The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, invite you to participate in an online survey on how personality and cognitive styles might influence religious belief and attributions of intentionality. The study is open to atheists, theists, and anyone who might consider themselves ‘in-between’. You must be 18 years or older to participate. The survey will take approxima...

Newspaper Reader Complains About Atheism Story in Religion Section

I love letters to the editor because they often showcase the ignorance of the community, and Ann Ludlow’s letter in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch is a perfect example.

She’s very unhappy that the Religion section covered the announcement from Ryan Bell that he no longer believes in God:

I fail to see the purpose of the article… on the so-called Religion page…

…

So he became an atheist after spending 2014 trying to figure out who God is. Do you think your readers really care about this? His decision...

Catholic League’s Bill Donohue Blames Charlie Hebdo Cartoonists for Provoking Terrorists

In typical fashion, the Catholic League’s Bill Donohue issued a statement in response to the massacre at Charlie Hebdo… and it’s simply awful. After briefly condemning the violence, he spends the bulk of his time criticizing the cartoonists for bringing this tragedy upon themselves:

Those who work at this newspaper have a long and disgusting record of going way beyond the mere lampooning of public figures, and this is especially true of their depictions of religious figures. For example, they...

It’s Time to Abandon the Irrational Concept of a Soul

While religion itself has received plenty of criticism over the past several years, the concept of the soul often gets a pass. Maybe it’s because the belief doesn’t do much damage, but it’s no more rational than a belief in God. There’s no evidence for it, you can’t sell it (I promise), and it really doesn’t weigh 21 grams.

Julien Musolino, a cognitive scientist and Associate Professor at Rutgers, has finally written a book debunking this idea that so many Americans hold dear. It’s bluntly titled The Soul Fallacy: What Science Shows We Gain from Letting Go of Our Soul Beliefs (Prometheus Books, 2015):

In the excerpt below, Musolino explains why the soul is a topic worth discussing:

WHEN THE SPIRIT MOVES YOU

What would possess someone to publicly blurt out, like the child in Andersen’s famous tale, that the emperor has no clothes, and worse, that he has no soul either? One of my favorite answers comes from one of my colleagues who once said, when asked a similar question: “I am paid to find out the truth and announce it!” (To be fair, this remark was probably made tongue-in-cheek, and besides, not all truths are born equal.) For those of us who are involved in the business of teaching psychology, neuroscience, or cognitive science, the soul certainly represents a perfect illustration of the proverbial elephant in the room.

We cognitive scientists routinely talk about the physical basis of mind and use phrases such as “the mind is what the brain does.” Much less often do we publicly discuss what the physical basis of mind entails for the traditional notion of personhood. This is no doubt in large part because, as Joshua Greene pointed out, the question of the soul is a touchy issue. But just because an issue is touchy doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t talk about it. In fact, if we really are in the business of education, we should talk about such issues precisely because they are touchy and therefore rarely discussed publicly. After all, clergymen, movie directors, and politicians openly talk about the soul, so why shouldn’t scientists?

It should go without saying (but it goes even better if we say it, as one of my high school teachers liked to remind us) that the goal of such discussion isn’t to bully people who happen to believe in the soul into changing their beliefs. Rather, the objective is to create a free marketplace of ideas, where all points of views can be discussed without fear of censorship or discrimination, and to let people decide for themselves which set of ideas they find the most compelling. If teachers, educators, scientists, and writers were discouraged from discussing touchy, unfashionable, or controversial topics on the grounds that they are, well, touchy, unfashionable, or controversial, then education, like Harry and Rodrick’s world, would lose much of its value and meaning.

Ironically, fairness and the recognition of different points of view is precisely what is often called for by proponents of certain “controversial” ideas in America today. Take for example the perennial “debate” over creationism and evolution that has been raging in the United States for many decades (much to the astonishment of our European friends). One of the arguments often made by proponents of intelligent design (the latest brand of creationism) is that we should be fair and teach students both sides of the “controversy.” “Teach the controversy and let the students decide for themselves!” we often hear (sometimes from people as prominent as the president of the United States, in the case of George W. Bush). Teaching the “controversy” in the evolution vs. intelligent design “debate” would be an excellent idea indeed if there actually was a meaningful controversy in the first place. To be sure, there is a huge manufactured, and largely North American, public controversy, but it has no analogue in the scientific world (hence the scare quotes when I used the words controversy and debate).

In the case of the soul, if there is a public controversy over its existence at all, it has been a pretty quiet one, at least compared to the battles raging over evolution. Nevertheless, while a substantial majority of the American public believes in the soul and its survival after death, mainstream science has abandoned this traditional idea. So here we have two worldviews that could not be more different from one another, and if we really care about being fair and ensuring that different ideas get their share of airtime, I say it’s time to give scientists the microphone. As the psychologist Paul Bloom put it: “Such issues are too important to leave entirely in the hands of lawyers, politicians, and theologians.”

This book is the rejoinder to the growing number of popular books that have surfaced in recent years, trying to make the case for the soul on scientific grounds. Examples include Life after Death: The Evidence, by conservative writer and Christian apologist Dinesh D’Souza; Life after Death: The Burden of Proof, by New Age author Deepak Chopra; The Soul Hypothesis: Investigations into the Existence of the Soul, by linguist Mark Baker and philosopher Stewart Goetz; The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Case for the Existence of the Soul, by neuroscientist Mario Beauregard and journalist Denyse O’Leary; and Proof of Heaven, by neurosurgeon Eben Alexander. Here’s a revealing passage from D’Souza’s book:

To reclaim the hijacked territory, Christians must take a fresh look at reason and science. When they do, they will see that it stunningly confirms the beliefs that they held in the first place. What was presumed on the basis of faith is now corroborated on the basis of evidence, and this is especially true of the issue of life after death. Remarkably, it is reason and science that supply new and persuasive evidence for the afterlife — evidence that wasn’t there before.

So, according to D’Souza, science itself provides persuasive evidence for the immortality of the soul. If so, one might wonder why mainstream scientists themselves are not convinced by the kind of evidence that D’Souza claims exists. In fact, the scientific consensus goes precisely in the opposite direction: away from the soul and the afterlife — as we will discover in chapter 2. And it’s not that D’Souza’s fellow Christians failed to notice these developments. Consider, for example, the following passage from the back cover of a 2004 book titled What about the Soul? Neuroscience and Christian Anthropology, edited by the theologian Joel Green:

Everyone knows about the rocky relationship between science and theology brought about by the revolutionary proposals of Copernicus and Darwin. Fewer people know about an equally revolutionary scientific innovation that is currently under way among neurobiologists. This revolution in brain research has completely rewritten our understanding of who we are. It poses fundamental challenges to traditional Christian theology. According to the scientific worldview that now dominates, it is no longer necessary to speak of a soul or spirit as distinct from the functions of the brain.

Contrary to what D’Souza and others have claimed, I passionately disagree (perhaps I should say that I rationally disagree) with the conclusion that science supports the notion of an immortal soul. As I will argue in the pages ahead, the current scientific consensus isn’t simply a fad, nor is it fueled by antireligious sentiment (as Baker and Goetz suggest in their book). Instead, scientists have abandoned the soul because reason and evidence — the tools of their trade — compelled them to do so.

THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE

Although the world rarely comes neatly prepackaged into clearly delineated categories, and contains many shades of gray, I have come to see that people fall into roughly three categories with respect to the question of the soul. At one end of the spectrum are my colleagues and fellow scientists, for whom the conclusions I will reach in this book will not be particularly surprising. At the other end of the spectrum, we find people who are intimately convinced that human beings have souls and who will not consider, even in principle, that this may not be true. I’ve often heard them politely tell me that scientists can present all the evidence they want, no amount would ever convince them to change their minds. Just like Agent Mulder in The X-Files, they want to believe. Period.

There is also a third category. These are people who sit on the fence regarding the existence of the soul, although they may be leaning one way or the other. At the heart of their dilemma lies the massive asymmetry that we find in a country like the United States — for every bit of information that is released from the ivory tower and reaches the general public on the topic of the soul, there are ten gigabytes of countervailing information pouring out from all corners of popular culture. So those undecided souls (here’s an example of usage that does not carry any metaphysical implications) end up being immersed in the traditional view, but they are only vaguely familiar with the details of the scientific view. I have met many of those people myself and come to realize that they, unlike the people in the previous category, are in principle willing to change their minds if someone takes the time to carefully explain to them why it is that mainstream scientists no longer believe in the soul. Sometimes, a little rational push is all it takes to awaken the Agent Scully within.

This book is equally suited to readers who fervently believe in the soul and will not change their minds, but who are nevertheless curious and would like to try to understand why there are people who do not believe in the soul narrative. As for the choir of colleagues and fellow scientists to whom I would be preaching, I am reminded of my own experience with ideas that I already accept. For example, I do not need to read any more books to convince myself of the validity of evolution, but I still read books on this topic because I find the details fascinating. I am also a big sucker for analogies that help convey complicated or important ideas (or both) in simple and compelling ways (the philosopher Daniel Dennett calls these intuition pumps, and I will use several of them throughout the book). So if other academics are like me in this regard, and I suspect that many are, I am sure there are many aspects of this book that they will enjoy too, even if the denouement is a forgone conclusion.

The Soul Fallacy is available online and in bookstores beginning today.

…

Reprinted from The Soul Fallacy, (Prometheus Books, 2015) with permission from the publisher

The Guy Who Taught Us “How Stuff Works” is Ready to Explain Why God Doesn’t Work

In 1997, the aptly-named Marshall Brain began a website that became a phenomenon: How Stuff Works. For years now, he’s been the guy who explained the inner workings of things we take for granted.

Now, he’s applying that same skill to religion.

His new book is called How “God” Works: A Logical Inquiry on Faith (Sterling Ethos, 2015):

You may not know this, but Brain is the same guy who created the website Why Won’t God Heal Amputees? And in the excerpt below, Brain talks about why God isn’t in the limb-regenerating business and what we should take away from that:

Millions of people pray to God every day to cure their diseases, solve their financial problems, help them win in Las Vegas, and so on. Christians behave in this way for many reasons: Because so many other people talk about answered prayers; because prayer is a big part of the culture; because of the many statements in the Gospels claiming that God will, in fact, do something as a result of prayer.

Imagine a Christian named Ashley who would like to be intellectually honest with herself. Her desire is to understand what’s really happening with prayer — to understand whether God is actually answering her prayers, or whether her “answered prayers” are in reality simple coincidences. For Ashley, there is an easy way to discover the truth: She can pray in a situation where there is no chance for coincidence to occur. Since coincidence has been eliminated, the only way for the prayer to be answered is for God to actually answer it.

Let us imagine that we, as critical thinkers, wish to formulate an extremely simple and extremely benevolent experiment to test the efficacy of prayer for Ashley. We take Christian veterans who are amputees and we start a program to actively and intensely pray for them. Christians gather together to ask God to spontaneously restore the lost limbs of veterans. We do not pray for prosthetics, or for surgeons to graft on donor limbs, or for medical science to develop a revolutionary new stem cell therapy or gene manipulation. We ask God to spontaneously replace amputated limbs today using only the power of prayer.

What happens if Jesus, who is supposed to be God incarnate, who is supposed to be perfect, omniscient, and incapable of lying, says, “I will do whatever you ask in my name” in a book that the majority of adults in America claim to be literally true? In that case, a critical thinker reasonably expects Jesus to do what he says he will do. We expect Jesus to regenerate amputated limbs in the same way that Christians claim Jesus is eliminating cancerous tumors. There really is nothing else to expect in this situation unless one or more of God’s attributes are false.

Yet we know, with certainty, that prayers for the restoration of amputated limbs will never work. Amputated limbs are never restored through prayer. Every thoughtful, intellectually honest person knows this.

It doesn’t matter how many people pray, how sincere they are, how devout they are, how much money they give to the church, or whether a priest is involved. Nothing ever happens when we pray to restore amputated limbs.

So why won’t God help amputees by restoring their lost limbs? Does God hate amputees? Is God discriminating against amputees? Is there something about amputees that locks them out of God’s prayer answering circle?

These are valid questions, but they are not the correct questions. This is the question a critical thinker asks: Does God answer any prayers? The critical thinker then forms a hypothesis: Every answered prayer of intercession is nothing more than a coincidence. The critical thinker then looks for evidence to support this hypothesis:

The situation with amputees provides evidence that is clear and unambiguous: Prayers to restore amputated limbs never work. In fact, every prayer fails when the possibility of coincidence has been eliminated like this.Try praying big instead of praying small. Instead of praying to cure one case of rabies, pray to God to completely eliminate the rabies virus worldwide overnight. Note that big prayers like these never work. Again, the chance for coincidence is eliminated.When the answer to a prayer could be a coincidence, and statistical analysis is performed, it becomes clear that every “answered prayer” is in fact a coincidence. Religious people do not win lotteries more often because they pray to win. Religious people do not get cured of
diseases at better rates because their friends pray for them. And so on. The evidence is concrete, consistent, and unambiguous. There is voluminous evidence indicating that belief in prayer is a superstition, and no valid evidence at all indicating that prayers of intercession work.

You can perform experiments yourself, in your own home today, to prove that prayer doesn’t work as described in the Bible. Critical thinkers use the evidence to understand the truth about how the world works.

So why do billions of people on Earth today believe that prayer works? Why is religious inspirational literature filled with thousands of examples of “answered prayers?” What’s happening is simple: Believers, because they lack or ignore critical thinking skills, do not look at evidence correctly. Or they completely ignore evidence. For example, believers fail to take coincidence into account when evaluating prayer’s efficacy, using confirmation bias to make note of the prayers that “work” while ignoring all of the prayers that do not.

How do Christians typically handle the unambiguous evidence that amputees represent? They might come up with rationalizations to try to explain why statements in the Bible are untrue for amputees. Or they might try to explain why amputees are somehow different from other people. Or they might simply get angry and storm away so they can ignore the evidence completely.

To see the reality of prayer, simply read what the Bible says and listen to what Christians say about prayer. Then pray for anything that cannot happen by coincidence. Pray for amputees to see their lost limbs spontaneously regenerated. Pray for an immediate, worldwide end to all cancers and other illnesses. Pray to fly like Superman. If there is no possibility for coincidence to influence the outcome, the number of answered prayers will always be zero.

How “God” Works is available in bookstores and online beginning today. And don’t forget to listen to our interview with Marshall on the most recent episode of our podcast!

…

Reprinted with permission from How “God” Works published in 2015 by Sterling Ethos, an imprint of Sterling Publishing. Text © 2014 BYG Publishing, Inc.

Troy Chancellor Jack Hawkins Has No Clue How to Apologize for the Inappropriate Religious Video He Sent Students

Chancellor Jack Hawkins of Alabama’s Troy University, who sent a completely inappropriate anti-atheist video to the entire student body and faculty last week, has finally issued a lengthier explanation of what he was trying to do. It’s not a better explanation. Just a longer one.

This was his original email:

(Reminder for those who don’t want to see the video again: It’s all about how religion is vital for democracy because it persuades people to follow the law… since they’re ultimately accountable to God. It presents a completely warped vision of how democracy works — and sends the message that Godless people are inherently immoral.)

In an email sent to students and faculty members yesterday, Hawkins elaborated on the video:

The recent New Year’s message I shared with the university community was not intended to offend. It was intended to encourage recipients to embrace the year ahead and to stimulate thought and discussion as to “why” America appears to be challenged at home and abroad.

It is regretful my message was found offensive by some due to their assumption it was based upon my intent to promote religion. Nowhere in my personal message did I mention religion. It is also ironic the genesis of the video message narrated by Harvard professor Clay Christensen was an observation made by a visiting scholar from China — a Marxist economist spending time at Harvard as a Fulbright scholar.

The Marxist economist concluded that American democracy has worked because the historic role of religion as a cornerstone of our society leads most Americans to “choose to obey the law.” Dr. Christensen expressed concern that as the influence of religion wanes in America, our nation will be left without institutions to teach this valuable lesson.

American higher education values academic freedom and free speech. It also holds dear its role as offering a marketplace of ideas for this country and the world. Those ideas should span a broad spectrum — even if segments of our society are offended by the views and observations of those with whom they disagree. In the end it is truth we seek as a university community.

This may be the worst apology I’ve seen in a while — because it’s not even an apology, because he’s had plenty of opportunities to make things right and failed every time, and because he blames everyone but himself for the ensuing controversy.

He blames anyone who found the message offensive (instead of trying to understand why we might have been offended).

He claims he never mentioned religion in his message… even though the video he included in that message, as he readily admits, was all about how amazing religion is.

He condescendingly explains the contents of the video, as if nobody bothered to watch it.

He brings up the idea of free speech and academic freedom, which was never in question.

He is completely aloof to the fact that the video, which was inappropriate for what should have been a generic “Happy New Year” message, pushes flat-out bullshit ideas.

I stand by what I said yesterday:

I hope students at the university find a way to (respectfully) express their frustrations with their leader. This would never have been tolerated if he had slammed any other group of students besides atheists.

(via South Alabama Atheist. Portions of this article were posted earlier)

Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago Launches Billboard Campaign Reaching Out to the Godless

The Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago just launched its first billboard campaign today on the north side of the city:

“We want to let nonbelievers know that we have a long-established, welcoming community here in the Chicago area that is dedicated to reason,” said Lisa Crowe, Publicity Chair of the Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago.

Lisa added: “We would like to encourage Chicagoland’s nonbelievers, whether they identify as humanists, atheists or agnostics, to join us at our meetinghouse for our fascinating and informative Sunday morning programs, to check out our secular Sunday school, and to consider using our officiants for weddings, memorials, and baby namings. And we welcome all to participate in our community’s social and community service activities.”

I’ve spoken to this group a couple of times over the years, and it’s always a pleasure. Even though the billboard might make you think this is a group focused on atheism, the people there do so much more than that. They’re interested in living a great life and religion just doesn’t come into play. If you’re in the Skokie area, check them out!

Atheist Billboards Go Up in Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi

Today, four different billboards are going up in the cities of Pensacola, Florida; Mobile, Alabama; and Gulfport, Mississippi to mark the launch of the Gulf Coast Coalition of Reason, made up of fifteen separate organizations:

Reaching out to the like-minded isn’t the only goal of the effort. “We want people to know that nontheistic folks like us are a regular part of communities all over the area,” said Amanda Scott, a co-coordinator for Gulf Coast CoR. “Nontheists are your friends and neighbors, your coworkers and family members.” Buz Ryland, co-coordinator, added, “We know there are thousands of us along the Gulf Coast and we want them to know we are here, and that they have a community where they can also be a part of doing good.”

The billboards, which will be up for a month (through Christmas and New Years), cost $11,000 and were funded by the United Coalition of Reason, a group that has now placed signs in 37 states in addition to the District of Columbia.

Even though the messages are harmless, I have no doubt they’ll ruffle feathers all along the coast. Which is precisely why these billboards are needed.

In Response to Christian Club at Elementary School, Some Atheists Are Launching a Skeptics Group for Kids

The Good News Club is a weekly program targeting elementary school children, because Christians love to indoctrinate kids before they start asking critical questions. (If you haven’t read it yet, check out Katherine Stewart‘s fantastic book about the organization.)

When a GNC began at Fairbanks Road Elementary School in New York, Monroe County residents Dan Courtney, Bill Courtney, and Kevin Davis weren’t sure how to respond. It wasn’t illegal for the group to be there, but they wanted an alternative for parents like them who preferred more skeptical fare for their kids.

So they began a group of their own and it’s launching next week.

Young Skeptics (sponsored by the tongue-in-cheek “Better News Club, Inc.”) will cater to non-religious parents:

The Better News Club and Young Skeptics operate in stark opposition to the Good News Club’s philosophy, understanding it’s more important to teach children how to make belief decisions for themselves, rather than accept claims presented to them without thinking critically about those claims. In Young Skeptics sessions, children are encouraged to ask questions, make discoveries, and challenge the ideas presented to them.

Young Skeptics is not on a mission to challenge the religious views of children attending the group. Instead, our goal is to provide children with an alternative, and scientifically based, view of the natural world around them.

This group is essentially a carbon copy of the GNC, minus the nonsense. It’s open to all elementary-school-aged children, parents can attend meetings, and signed permission slips are necessary.

The biggest question I have is whether Christians will flip out over it or accept it as an alternative option.

For what it’s worth, I had a negative reaction to this group the first time I heard about it, because I didn’t like the idea of atheists doing what Christians had done in this regard. I’m very hesitant about forming atheist groups at elementary schools.

What puts me at ease here, though, is that it functions like Camp Quest: Sure, it aimed at children of atheist parents, but it’s not limited to them. And at no point is the group pushing atheism on these kids. They’re simply inviting questions and teaching critical thinking skills. And if your faith can’t handle that, it’s your problem.

After Pressure from Atheists, Grand Haven City Council Puts a Stop to Giant Hydraulic Cross

A few months ago, I posted about a giant hydraulic cross that goes up several times a year atop Dewey Hill in Grand Haven, Michigan:

You can read the history of that cross here but the question is whether this constitutes government promotion of religion.

In October, atheist activists Mitch Kahle and Holly Huber began challenging the Hydraulic Cross. With residents Brian and Kathy Plescher and attorneys from Americans United for Separation of Church and State, they requested that the Cross be used to promote their own views… including, for example, decorating it to celebrate LGBT pride, the winter solstice, reproductive rights, and atheism.

Hilarious. And a perfect response to anyone who claimed the Cross wasn’t really about promoting religion.

Last night, at a meeting of the Grand Haven City Council, the members voted 3-2 to turn that Hydraulic Cross into a permanent anchor and stop letting it get hijacked by various religious and non-religious groups looking to promote their agendas. Success!

According to the adopted resolution (pp. 81-82):

WHEREAS, the City has received requests to site additional structures on Dewey, or to substantially alter existing structures, which would require access for construction, erection, and repeatedly changing displays; and,

WHEREAS, the City legally cannot and should not selectively allow displays if that selection could even be perceived as based on the content of the displays;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

1. Commencing January 1, 2015, Dewey Hill shall no longer be available for any display except in accordance with this resolution.

2. The American Flag shall continue to be displayed on Dewey Hill.

3. The City Council may each year adopt resolutions permitting fireworks displays and other displays in conjunction with the annual Independence Day holiday and Coast Guard Festival. Before adopting any such resolution, the City Council shall review past celebrations and their impact on the dune, consider measures to be employed to minimize the effects on the dune during the proposed upcoming celebration, consider any special weather or other conditions that may affect the fragility of the dune, and consider other factors the City Council deems to be important for its annual review and consideration.

4. The feature pole currently located on Dewey Hill shall be configured solely as an anchor and, as so configured, may be used in conjunction with musical fountain programs or when requested in conjunction with other community activities. Anyone requesting use of the anchor display for purposes other than in conjunction with Independence Day celebration, the Coast Guard Festival, or a musical fountain program, shall pay a fee to the City that is determined to pay the cost to raise or lower the pole.

No more Cross. No more litigation. And all it seemed to take was the threat of atheists wanting the same sort of access to the hydraulics that Christians had received for years.

Is anyone surprised by that?

(Portions of this article were published earlier)