New Pope, old ideas

I’m sure most of you have heard by now that the next Pope has been chosen. It’s this guy.

Photo credit: Natacha Pisarenko / AP

His real name is Jorge Bergoglio, and he came from Argentina. As Pope, he will be called Francis. And other than that, we don’t know a whole lot about him. He was discussed this morning on the Diane Rehm Show, and as I was listening during my morning commute I appreciated the insight of Father James Martin, an American Jesuit priest. The transcript of today’s show hasn’t been published yet, so I must paraphrase his comments:

‘Bergoglio is a conservative Catholic, so I don’t see him changing the Church’s policies towards gays or contraception.’

Fair enough. A little disappointing, but not surprising for the leader of an oppressive worldwide religious institution.

But then Martin goes on to stick his foot in his mouth, as religious folk are wont to do. Once again, I paraphrase:

‘But the Pope shouldn’t really be worried about social issues like that. Now is a time to bring the gospel to the people and introduce them to Jesus.’

Oh. Is that so? You’re kind of a prick if you think the head honcho of the religion that preaches love should ignore the suffering of the LGBTQ community, ranging from simple marriage discrimination to execution. Contraception was discussed in the context of financial inequality, but apparently the Pope gets to disregard the plight of even devout Catholic families with too many mouths to feed. Father Martin, if you really wanted to introduce more people to Jesus’ teachings of tolerance and support for the poor, you could start by following his damn example.

Besides dismissing the blatant opportunity to emulate the good deeds of your savior, you suggest that more people need to be introduced to Jesus. Really? Christianity is one of the largest religions in the world and has a vice-grip on social and legal policies in many regions, but you still think spreading it further is a higher priority than alleviating suffering? Either you lack the compassion you claim to hold so dear, or you’re stupid.

Not that it’s even the Pope’s responsibility to reach barbarians who haven’ t heard the good word yet. That’s what missionaries are for. And then local priests reinforce it. No, Francis will ride around in his Popemobile, trusting God to protect him with bulletproof glass and speaking Latin. He might announce that God spoke to him about those social issues we should be ignoring, but he sure as hell won’t be telling clergymen how to keep their parishioners in line.

On a rather tangential note, SASHA has been having our own Popewatch for the past several weeks, and I was really hoping we’d end up with this lovely fellow.

Photo credit: Pier Marco Tacca/Getty Images

This is Angelo Scola of Italy, and he has the coolest God-damned stick of any of the major Pope contenders. Sure, Francis has bling, but this guy knows where it’s at. Ah, well. At 71 years old, he’s five years Francis’ junior, so maybe he’ll be around for the next conclave.

Is it wrong to laugh at objectification?

Welcome to the official MU SASHA daily blog!

First time here? Read this.

Click here to Like our Page on Facebook (or use the sidebar if you’re logged in).
Local to Columbia? Join the Facebook Group, too!

_________________________________________________________________________

This isn’t the sort of thing I usually blog about — I’m a believer in the idea of picking one’s battles, which is why you also rarely see posts on here by me about animal welfare, poverty alleviation, vegetarianism, etc, even though those are also things I care about aside from atheism activism.

Today I’m writing about an incident that occurred today at the Skepticamp Ohio 2012 event. Please note that I am hearing about this second-hand, as I’m in Columbia this weekend and not at the conference. Here’s a copy-and-pasted summary of what happened, confirmed through a few different sources on Twitter and Facebook, as stated by my friend S:

A female presenter made a joking comment about how skeptics should have more children, and a guy in the crowd shouts “Are you volunteering?”

My question to our readers is, is it wrong to laugh at this? Is it even funny at all? Now, I want to make it clear that I’m talking about his statement, NOT the act of interruption during the speaker’s talk. Clearly it is inappropriate to interrupt a speaker, regardless of sex, even when they make a joke, if you ask me. Interrupting a speaker is permissible when 1) there is a technical problem, like a dead microphone or 2) there is a safety problem, like a fire in the building, or a bomb threat. Otherwise, it’s fine to laugh, but don’t shout stuff out. I think we can all more-or-less agree on that part.

As far as the content of what the crowd-guy said, is it actually wrong? Let’s look at a few possibilities.

The presenter set the tone for the exchange by making a joking comment (according to an eyewitness from the conference from whom I got the statement above). Setting aside for the moment that this was probably not directed at any single individual and it was inappropriate for a single audience member to respond to it, I would say that the appropriate response to this part of the exchange is laughter. Like I said, I wasn’t there, but I’m guessing that the audience laughed at this part.

Then, the guy from the audience said, “Are you volunteering?” Now’s where it gets tricky: Did the presenter genuinely think this response was funny? Did she feel harassed, but laugh anyway as a defense mechanism? Did she find it a bit funny and a bit harassing, and laugh partially because it was funny and partially as a defense mechanism? Or did she not find it funny at all and feel only harassed (as the eyewitness felt, both vicariously for the speaker, and as a passive participant as part of the crowd)? I would be interested in hearing the speaker’s thoughts on it, if anyone can tell me who exactly it was, so I might be able to contact her about it.

I understand that there is a harassment policy in place at the conference, and that the matter was attended to. I don’t know what that means, but it’s a start.

So, the title of this post is, “Is it wrong to laugh?” When phrased this way, the topic is more clearly one of ethics. I agree with my friend C.M. that if others in the room are also affected by this exchange and so we need to take them into account in our utility calculation, or whatever system we want to use. But what if everyone in the room thought it was genuinely funny and not at all harassing, including the speaker? Would it still be harassment then?

Now we’re looking at a question more like, “If a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound?” Or take the example of, “If someone disrobes in a forest with no one around, is it still flashing?” If it’s a public park, I suppose it is, even though there’s little chance of a charge without a complainant. The same, I would argue, applies with this incident: If truly no one was offended, then laughing is totally fine. If even one person is offended, whether it’s the speaker or not, then we start edging toward unethical behavior.

The question is, how do we establish what’s offensive or not until it happens? We can speculate based on previous experience and knowledge of our audience — comedians can get away with saying all sorts of things that we commoners could never permissibly say in a public place — but ultimately, it’s a risk/reward gamble.

Speaking of risk/reward, C.M. also said that “It would have been inappropriate, but not as bad, if the genders were reversed.” I think now we are getting to the meat of it: Is this an ethical problem with harassment, or with sexism?

When asked to clarify, she said, in so many words, that it would do less harm, because women are historically on the receiving end of objectification & harassment. Ah, so we are talking about how much harm we’re causing, not whether or not we’re causing harm. If that’s the case, it’s back to risk/reward: If one person is offended at a “5″ on a 1-10 scale, but the other 99 people in the audience think it’s funny at a “5″ on a “1-10″ scale, is it wrong? Again, it depends on your ethical system. Some people would say that it’s wrong to laugh if anyone is offended, perhaps especially in the case of the speaker. But if we’re talking about less bad, then at what point does it become permissible? Or if it’s never permissible, then why split it into degrees?

Jokes make conferences fun. They make all social interactions fun. Frankly, I wouldn’t want to attend a conference where jokes are prohibited on the basis of the possibility of offense. Even academic conferences (usually!) have some humor. Jokes are all about testing boundaries and sometimes tiptoeing past them. That’s the point. And sometimes the best humor does come from audience interaction, especially from mocking. It’s a tool in the humor toolchest — just look up “heckler” + the name of your favorite comedian on YouTube, or consider this interaction from the late, great Sydney Morgenbesser, the famous Columbia philosophy professor and jokester:

During a lecture the Oxford linguistic philosopher J.L. Austin made the claim that although a double negative in English implies a positive meaning, there is no language in which a double positive implies a negative. To which Morgenbesser responded in a dismissive tone, “Yeah, yeah.”

Consider another Morgenbesser great:

Morgenbesser was leaving a subway station in New York City and put his pipe in his mouth as he was ascending the steps. A police officer told him that there was no smoking on the subway. Morgenbesser pointed out that he was leaving the subway, not entering it, and hadn’t lit up yet anyway. The cop again said that smoking was not allowed in the subway, and Morgenbesser repeated his comment. The cop said, “If I let you do it, I’d have to let everyone do it.” Morgenbesser replied, “Who do you think you are, Kant?” The word “Kant” was mistaken for a vulgar epithet and Morgenbesser had to explain the situation at the police station.

Some people will find this second one offensive. That’s the point. The police officer certainly did, and took Morgenbesser into custody over it. But is it wrong to laugh at this on the basis that someone finds it offensive?

I would say, no. You have to weigh the good with the bad. If our rule is, “If someone finds it offensive, or might find it offensive, don’t say it,” we are losing out on a lot of good stuff. Consider George Carlin’s “Words You Can’t Say On TV” stand-up bit without anything potentially offensive, or Ricky Gervais, or Aziz Ansari, or my favorite, Jim Jeffries. Whoever uploaded that Jim Jeffries clip linked in the last sentence even provides us with a nice little disclaimer in the description, reading “Warning: Highly likely to offend die-hard religious types.”

Or alternatively, is our rule that we shouldn’t laugh at something that has the capacity to offend someone, or a group of people, who have a personal or demographic history of oppression against the subject of the joke? Especially if the person laughing has a historical association with the oppressors, whether personal or ancestral?

I think the most anyone can ask is that we do the best we can. We should do our best to be patient and understanding when someone offends us, and explain why we are offended and what a less offensive alternative might be. But keep in mind, if your only reason for disliking some statement is that it offends you, then what you are really saying is you lack good reasons for intending others to change their behavior. In the words of Richard Dawkins:

You will not say, ‘It’s offensive, it’s offensive.” You will say, ‘No, you are wrong here, and you are wrong here, and you are wrong here,’ and that’s what you should do.

I don’t remember who said this, but I once heard a statement that has stuck in my memory. When you say you are offended, what you are really saying is that you cannot control your emotions, and instead, you want to control other people’s behavior. I’m not sure I entirely agree with it, but I wanted to share it with you, and get your feedback on it.

I think it’s important that we keep in mind that “feminism” means “the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men,” not turning the tables so that it’s the reverse of the 1950s’. Similarly, we must keep in mind the different between sexual objectification and sexism. Anyone can be the subject of objectification, and anyone can be the subject of sexism. Women are much more commonly the subject of both of these than men. Although there is a historical element, and privilege plays a role in audience reaction etc, I think it’s important that we remember that, if we really want to call ourselves feminists, we ought to be just as bothered by this statement:

A male presenter made a joking comment about how skeptics should have more children, and a woman in the crowd shouts “Are you volunteering?”

as we are about this one:

A female presenter made a joking comment about how skeptics should have more children, and a guy in the crowd shouts “Are you volunteering?”

In fact, as I mentioned to the eyewitness previously mentioned, I would have just phrased it as: “A presenter made a joking comment about how skeptics should have more children, and someone in the crowd shouts ‘Are you volunteering?’

In an ideal world, it really says the same thing, and that’s what we should be striving for, right? If we achieve social equality, and reproduction has nothing to do with the story, then why even mention what sex the speaker or audience member is?

Very curious for your thoughts on all of this, folks! Thanks for reading. If you comment below, I will respond!

- Dave

P.S. I do think skeptics should consider having more children, or alternatively, adopting. This is something the religious folks have quite a monopoly on. I also recommend this clip, for laughs and for illustrative purposes

Dave Muscato is Vice President of MU SASHA. He is a vegetarian, LGBTQ ally, and human- & animal-welfare activist. A junior at Mizzou studying economics & anthropology and minoring in philosophy & Latin, Dave posts updates to the SASHA blog every Monday, Thursday, and Saturday and twice monthly for the Humanist Community at Harvard. His website is http://www.DaveMuscato.com.

Follow Dave on Google+
Follow Dave on Twitter

Helpful resources:

Godisimaginary.com – Iron Chariots Wiki – Skeptics’ Annotated Bible / Skeptics’ Annotated Qur’an – AtheismResource.com – TalkOrigins.org

YouTubers: Evid3nc3, Thunderf00t, TheAmazingAtheist, The Atheist Experience, Edward Current, NonStampCollector, Mr. Deity, Richard Dawkins, QualiaSoup

Blogs: Greta Christina, PZ Myers, The Friendly Atheist, WWJTD?, Debunking Christianity, SkepChick

and don’t forget… other SASHA members! We are here for you, too!

SASHA Guest Post: “Deliver Us From Virtue” by Rocket Kirchner

Welcome to the official MU SASHA daily blog!

First time here? Read this.

Click here to Like our Page on Facebook (or use the sidebar if you’re logged in).
Local to Columbia? Join the Facebook Group, too!

_________________________________________________________________________

Today’s article is a guest post by musician, activist, long-time friend of SASHA, and Christian evangelist Rocket Kirchner.

Lao Tzu  says that when a man praises virtue, he turns other men into criminals. WOW! Now, that is really  throwing the gauntlet down. I have always found it ludicrous how we humans actually think that we are moral, ethical, virtuous people, and that we actually waste our time seeking to exalt such nonsense. Seems like we need a good absurdist comedian and a busload of clowns to dance around us and burst our pompous  bubble. In the Middle Ages they had what was called “The Feast of Fools,” where one day out of the year, people would dress up as magistrates, popes, and cardinals, in a mock ceremony — Harvey Cox wrote a great book on the subject. The somewhat equivalent to this in the Far East is called “Nasty Night,” where monks walk around one night of the year and yell nasty things to anyone or anything.

When we seek to be good, we play with fire. This fire culminates in us externalizing evil (as if we are above it),  and establishes the fundamentalist mindset. It matters not what one believes, or what one does not believe, that makes one a fundamentalist. What makes one a Fundie is praising virtue as if it has any intrinsic quality of authentic goodness in and of itself. In reality, this activity has the makings of constructing a ladder of self exaltation over others.

The complete blindness of the man who thinks that his good is the good is the peak of attachment to an illusory self. The root of every bloody political revolution, be it religious or anti-religious, or just plain an ideology of thinking that it will make a difference and make the world a better place, has separated humans from each other. The minute we think we are good, we are doomed. The only crack that we have in an kind of real goodness is not to be conscious of it, not to seek it, but rather to simply love people in word and in deed including  loving those who hate us. We must seek to serve others and forget about all of this moralistic crap. Period. For only love and servanthood can deliver us from virtue, and being delivered from virtue is the same as being delivered from evil.

Rocket Kirchner is a long-time friend of SASHA. He is a professional musician, pacifism activist, Christian evangelist, and life-long student of philosophy.

Helpful resources:

Godisimaginary.com
Iron Chariots Wiki
Skeptics’ Annotated Bible / Skeptics’ Annotated Qur’an
AtheismResource.com
TalkOrigins.org

YouTubers: Evid3nc3, Thunderf00t, TheAmazingAtheist, The Atheist Experience, Edward Current,NonStampCollector, Mr. Deity, Richard Dawkins, QualiaSoup

Blogs: Greta Christina, PZ Myers, The Friendly Atheist, WWJTD?, Debunking Christianity, SkepChick

and don’t forget… other SASHA members! We are here for you, too!

Dave Muscato on Dr. Andrew Bernstein, Religion, and Morality

Welcome to the official MU SASHA daily blog!

First time here? Read this.

Click here to Like our Page on Facebook (or use the sidebar if you’re logged in).
Local to Columbia? Join the Facebook Group, too!

_________________________________________________________________________

Hello all,

I gave a talk, “Why Blasphemy Matters,” at the University of Central Missouri in Warrensburg on Monday (90 miles from Columbia). I look forward to giving the talk to more campus groups in the future. This was only the second time I’ve given that particular talk, and although I think it went well, I also think I can improve it. More about that another time: I found out that a philosopher named Andrew Bernstein would be in town the following evening giving a talk called “Religion vs. Morality.” I decided to stay in town an extra day so I could attend.

As it turns out, the Objectivist Club at UCM had scheduled a dinner with Dr. Bernstein before his 8 PM lecture, and I had the fortune of sitting next to him while we all ate. Dr. Bernstein, or Andy, teaches philosophy at SUNY Purchase. He is an objectivist and proponent of Ayn Rand’s work, as well as a philosopher (and novelist) in his own right. He’s written several books about capitalism, philosophy, and objectivism, lectures internationally, and he also wrote the Cliff’s Notes for Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

Me with Andrew Bernstein (on left)

At dinner, topics ranged from the current crop of Republican candidates (he plans to vote for “whichever sorry candidate the Republicans nominate”) to how to get into grad schools (his advice: Where you studied isn’t as important as what you have to say). I told him that although one of my majors is economics, I really know relatively little about market forces, capitalism, international trade, finance, etc, compared to most econ majors. I’ve taken a few required courses in those sorts of things, but my interest is game theory. I study altruism and the evolution of morality, especially its interplay with the history of religion, using the tools from behavioral economics & economic modeling. I admitted that this was my first real exposure to what objectivism is all about. He told me that his talk is not about religion AND morality, but more specifically religion VERSUS morality: in his estimation, an either/or proposal. I thought, this should be interesting!

At 8 PM, I joined an auditorium of people on the UCM campus as Angel Munoz Gomez Andrade, the president of the Objectivist Club, introduced Bernstein. Watching Bernstein speak is a real treat: He has a thick New York accent and a raw, passionate tone. Throughout his speech, he spoke with his hands as much as with his voice. The way he rapped his fingertips on the podium, shifted his weight when weighing what to say next, and stood on his toes to emphasize his points immediately brought to mind Al Pacino’s passion and mannerisms. An audience member, during the Q&A, said that he, lacking a philosophy background himself, had trouble following Bernstein on some of the more complex philosophy, but I found myself having the opposite experience: I think Bernstein has a remarkable ability to take complex philosophical ideas and illustrate them with digestible examples in such a way that they are readily understandable [disclosure: I'm minoring in philosophy].

The purpose of Bernstein’s talk, as stated above, is to argue that religion and morality are fundamentally at odds. Religion, because it is necessarily founded upon faith, requires irrational thinking, which Bernstein argues necessarily leads humans away from our values, and results in nothing short of death. There are certainly historical examples of this — he mentioned faith healing a few times, and the abysmal life expectancy of the third-world versus the first-world today. He argued that morality is, in so many words, whatever helps living things achieve their values, which (objectivism argues) are necessarily dictated by nature. These values are neither subjective in the social-consensus sense, nor the individual “whim” sense, nor the religious sense (via sacred text or divine revelation). According to objectivism, we need only look to the facts of what nature has presented to us in order to determine our values: There is, in fact, no need for subjective disagreement on what we “should” value or strive toward, because nature has already spelled out for us what is good and what is bad, whether we consent to it or not. We are living creatures, and what is “good” is whatever promotes life, and what is “bad” is whatever does not.

Dr. Andrew Bernstein presenting on "Religion vs. Morality" at the University of Central Missouri

I’m reminded of Craig Palmer (Mizzou anthropologist) and Lyle Steadman’s (ASU professor emeritus) definitions concerning moral behavior for humans living in groups: Morality is roughly synonymous with pro-social behavior, and immoral behavior is roughly synonymous with antisocial behavior (see their 2010 book The Supernatural and Natural Selection: The Evolution of Religion). A human being in complete isolation is incapable of moral or immoral action, following this line of thinking: Anything s/he does is morally justifiable if it’s a means toward the end of his survival, by virtue of the very fact that lacking are any other living things to harm in the process.

Objectivism, as I understand it, has this to say about the matter: Natural selection has provided every living thing with some sort of tool (insofar as it is necessary, given its biological niche) to aid in its survival. For an elephant, that might be its massive size, thick hide, tusks, etc. For an elk, this might be its antlers and speed. For a tiger or wolf, claws & teeth. Nature has also “provided” (selected for) fur coats to protect some animals from cold climates. In the case of elephants, huge floppy ears are very important for temperature regulation: They have lots of surface area and LOTS of blood volume, such that the elephant can flap its ears to cool down the temperature of its blood, as another example.

What is “good” or “bad” when we’re talking about these animals behavior? Well, what’s “good” for a tiger or an elephant or mushroom or mosquito or bacterium is whatever aids it in its “mission” to survive and reproduce. Moral reflection or indeed consciousness at all is actually unnecessary for this. Any living thing will, quite naturally, do whatever it needs to do in order to survive and reproduce (else go extinct). What’s “good” is what leads toward this, and what’s “bad” is what leads away from this.

In the case of humans, natural selection actually took away our survival mechanisms (claws, sizable canine teeth, fur coats, etc) some time ago. Ancient primates gave up claws for nails a very long time ago (65-85 million years), and we still have a hint of canines and body hair, though nothing even close to that of our ancestors. What we do have, what nature has provided to us via selection, is something far more interesting, and far more useful, in exchange: rational, thinking brains. These are our survival tools. They allow us to innovate, to invent technologies, and to increase our efficiency. We don’t need claws; we have hand-axes (for an EXCELLENT discussion of the importance of hand-axes to human evolution, see Matt Ridley’s beautifully-written The Rational Optimist). As time went on, ancient humans further innovated to produce hafted axes (axes with handles), spears, arrowheads, and much later, metal bladed weapons, etc.

We don’t need costly (in terms of energy input/output and time invested) guts & digestive systems; we have fire. In fact, we are the only animals that cook our food: By doing so, we are basically outsourcing a large fraction of our ancestors’ digestive process. By investing fewer calories (less energy) in growing and maintaining a complex gut, natural selection was able to divert that energy into growing more complex brains, instead, and the process went ’round and ’round in a magnificent evolutionary upward spiral of exponential innovation. From controlled fire (and therefore bigger brains) came an increased ability to ward off predators and stay warm, especially at night (meaning even less need for caloric investment in muscle mass and large, powerful jaws, and less need for temperature regulation via thick body hair), which led to even more freed-up calories for investment in bigger brains, and so on and so on, until we get to anatomically modern humans some 200,000 years ago.

What’s “good” when it comes to humans specifically? According to my understanding of objectivism, it’s not determined by a god (divine command theory), nor by societal consensus (moral relativism), nor by the individual: Values are dictated to us by nature, intrinsic in the fact that we are living things. What’s “good” is whatever helps us get closer to living up to those values. Except for rare suicidal cases, humans (like all living things) naturally value survival, and except in (relatively) rare cases, humans (like all living things) naturally value reproduction. This is more-or-less a restatement of the biological imperative. According to objectivism, as I understand it, this is sufficient to resolve Hume’s is-ought problem. There are other proposed resolutions to this problem, for example, Sam Harris also claims that science [the application of reason to evidence] can answer moral questions in The Moral Landscape.

The argument for reason as the best tool for achieving human values (or any living thing’s values, for that matter), therefore, neatly falls into place. By rejecting all forms of irrationality — religion included — we are necessarily left with the path of least resistance toward the end of attaining that which [nature has determined] is of value to us. The application of reason, Bernstein argues, is the most efficient, healthiest, and most direct way to reach our goals. Since these goals are dictated by nature and emphatically not subjective, it is an open-and-shut case.

Religion, because it embraces faith (and is, by definition, irrational), is therefore directly at odds with life itself. According to Bernstein, “Religion is a philosophical system based in faith, not reason,” and it necessarily includes an unquestioning obedience to God. Religion views humans as sinful, and a failure to obey God is at the very core of what it means to be immoral, from the perspective of religion. This is so fundamental to the Abrahamic religions that it’s in fact the very basis of sin itself, illustrated by the Fall of Man.

As a student of anthropology, I strongly disagree with this definition of religion, although admittedly “religion” is notoriously difficult to define, and Bernstein was upfront about this being a purely working definition. Some religions (e.g. theistic Satanism) place zero emphasis on obedience to God or indeed encourage disobedience as permissible behavior. Note: I’m not talking about LaVey Satanism here; LaVey explicitly denounced “devil worship” or the idea of praying to Satan, and LaVey Satanists are generally atheists. In fact, atheistic Satanism can, I think, rightly be called “ethical egoism with ritual.” Other examples of religions lacking a necessity of obedience to “God” are Buddhism, Taoism, and many American Indian religions. In the case of Buddhism, the Eightfold Path is a rough stand-in for a revealed text from a god, and in the case of Taoism, the idea is to live in harmony with reality through compassion, moderation, and humility. Although supernatural elements are present in each system, a rule-giving god is conspicuously absent, and disobedience is not immoral per se.

Bernstein’s working definition of religion is sufficient for the Abrahamic religions in this context, but I don’t think he adequately makes the case against all religion, just religions that require obedience to a god (which, admittedly, is most of the ones we’re worried about in practice).

During the Q&A, an audience member asked if there was room for faith in any of this. He said that he is a farmer and gave the example of having faith that it will rain within a certain window of time when choosing exactly when to plant his crops. He cited weather patterns over the last few decades as informing his choice of when to plant. Bernstein rightly pointed out that the farmer, then, is not depending on faith — there is no supernatural element present there. I wanted to add to this that perhaps a better way to word it might be that the farmer doesn’t have faith that it will rain: He has confidence that it will, in the scientific sense (evidence informing probability). This is very, very different from trust (an emotion) and faith (non-evidence-based belief), and we should take care to correct people who use the word “faith” when they mean “confidence.” If evidence is leading to your belief, you are, by definition, confident. There’s a big difference, and I applaud Bernstein on pointing this out.

My other main objection is that Bernstein, while simultaneously praising Scandinavia’s rational, secular approach to the rejection of irrationality, doesn’t seem to give credit where credit is due with regard to the success they have had in the application of liberal-leaning public policy. Denmark, Norway, Sweden, etc has some of the healthiest people on the planet in terms of nutrition, lifespan, and other factors for which he earlier criticized the Dark Ages for lacking . Phil Zuckerman, in Society Without God: What The Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment, makes strong arguments for why life in Scandinavia is downright heavenly (har har) for rational people, and atheists especially: Aside from long lifespans, they have some of the lowest abortion rates, divorce rates, murder rates, illiteracy rates, corruption rates, etc. Yes, they have very high tax rates, but health care and college is accessible to anyone who wants it (as I understand it). Looking at GDP per capita, a favored metric by Bernstein (who quoted these figures several times throughout his talk), is not necessarily an optimal way to compare the living conditions in one country versus another. While after-tax income of course measures “lower” in countries with high tax rates (and I of course admit the obvious role Pigovian taxes play on disincentivizing innovation), if tax-funded services are provided in lieu of direct income, if this is not accounted for in one’s metric, an individual’s actual standard of living may be more-or-less unaffected, even as the GDP per capita falls. This is why other metrics have come into favor over GDP per capita, which is easier to calculate but provides less information about the overall picture. More informative metrics are, for example, the Gini coefficient (based on the Lorenz curve), the Human Poverty Index (a composite index which accounts for literacy, unemployment, probability of falling below the poverty line, and the probability, at birth, of surviving to age 60), among others. GDP per capita as a metric, perhaps most importantly, only very weakly accounts for life satisfaction and experienced utility (see my previous article on welfare economics here).

I strongly agree with Bernstein’s overall message that religion and morality cannot peaceably coexist. In the words of Sam Harris, “The problem of faith is that it is a conversation-stopper. As long as you don’t have to give reasons for what you believe, you have effectively immunized yourself against the power of human conversation. You hear religious people say things like, ‘There’s nothing that can be said that will change my mind.’ Just imagine that said in medicine. If there’s nothing that can be said that will change your mind, if there’s no evidence or argument that can be educed, that proves that you are not any state of the world into account in your beliefs. The problem with this is that when the stakes are high, we have a choice between conversation and violence.” Bernstein made essentially the same point in his talk, that giving credibility to faith necessarily results in an irreconciliable struggle for (theoretically!) rational animals like us.

Bernstein is a strong public speaker, a good conversationalist, and extremely knowledgable in his field. I recommend him to any campus group interested in guest lectures about objectivism, reason/rationality, or why religion is harmful to societies.

Until next time!

- Dave

mail@davemuscato.com

(573) 424-0420 cell/text

Dave Muscato is Vice President of MU SASHA. He is a vegetarian, LGBTQ ally, and human- & animal-welfare activist. A junior at Mizzou majoring in economics & anthropology and minoring in philosophy & Latin, Dave posts updates to the SASHA blog every Monday, Thursday, and Saturday. His website is http://www.DaveMuscato.com.

Follow Dave on Google+
Follow Dave on Twitter

Helpful resources:

Godisimaginary.com
Iron Chariots Wiki
Skeptics’ Annotated Bible / Skeptics’ Annotated Qur’an
AtheismResource.com
TalkOrigins.org

YouTubers: Evid3nc3, Thunderf00t, TheAmazingAtheist, The Atheist Experience, Edward Current, NonStampCollector, Mr. Deity, Richard Dawkins, QualiaSoup

Blogs: Greta Christina, PZ Myers, The Friendly Atheist, WWJTD?, Debunking Christianity, SkepChick

and don’t forget… other SASHA members! We are here for you, too!

ReasonFest 2012 Panel Discussion: “Is religion a force for good?”

Welcome to the official MU SASHA daily blog!

First time here? Read this.

Click here to Like our Page on Facebook (or use the sidebar if you’re logged in).
Local to Columbia? Join the Facebook Group, too!

_________________________________________________________________________

Several people now have asked me to post a transcript of what I said at the ReasonFest panel, so here you go:

Is religion a force for good?

I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this question. What’s “religion”? It’s one of those things that’s easy to define until you try. What’s the difference between a religion and a cult? A culture and a religion? A philosophy and a religion? A delusion and a religion? To paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, although he was talking about the definition of pornography, religion may be one of those things were we just know it when we see it.

What’s “force”? I don’t think we mean the energy field created by all living things that surrounds us and penetrates us and binds the galaxy together. Do we just mean something that inspires or motivates people? Do we mean it causes good things in itself? Do we mean that the good it motivates outweighs the bad?

And what’s “good,” anyway? Entire philosophy careers have been made out of nailing that one down and we still haven’t gotten it. Is “good” the minimizing of suffering of conscious creatures, as Sam Harris suggests, and is there more than one way to get there? Is “good” culturally dependent and relative? Is it even attainable?

I was originally going to say something very different about this. I had a whole thing worked up about why religion is not a force for good. But the more I thought about it, the more my answer changed.

I think it’s important that we feel free to be critical of ourselves in here. The framing of this question sets it up as a dichotomy – religion IS or IS NOT a force for good – and it’s a premise with which I disagree overall. Here’s why.

Religion has inspired people to do all sorts of things they probably would not otherwise do. I’m not just talking about the Crusades and 9/11 and impeding stem-cell research and all the things we wish religion did not motivate people to do, but building the Parthenon and volunteering at soup kitchens and making a cappella music (a cappella is Italian for “in the style of the church”). Religion is responsible for inspiring and motivating art, music, architecture, literature, and charity. While I agree with Christopher Hitchens in that there’s nothing a religious person can do that a secular person can’t, I don’t think it’s fair to say that religion is not a force for good.

But we clearly can’t call religion “a force for good,” either. It has redeeming qualities, and these seem to be persuasive enough to the majority of people around the world, though to be fair many of them have little say in the matter. While not all religions are structurally violent, especially to LGBTQ people and women – some pagan religions are downright feminist & sex-positive – the three Abrahamic religions, taken as written, certainly are.  I’m not going to list all the atrocities religion has brought to human history, but I will summarize by saying that most religions, as practiced, can be terribly destructive to the welfare of conscious creatures on this Earth.

I think that the best answer to this question of whether religion is a force for good or not is that religion just IS. Religion is a human invention, a tool, a meme, an adaptation, or as Dan Dennett simply calls it, a natural phenomenon. Its function is twofold. On the one hand, religion helps social animals establish loyalty to their group and to certain moral principles, so their genes can better benefit from the protections and gains-from-trade never before possible in pre-religious societies. On the other, religion provides explanations (albeit piss-poor ones) about The Big Questions: where did our universe come from? What’s the meaning of life? How ought we to act? What happens after we die?

While philosophy and science have, especially in the last few hundred years, given us much better answers to those questions than any religion previously, I don’t think it’s ideal to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Before I became an atheist, I was a worship musician, and my favorite gig was always conferences, because I felt so connected to other people. I was so thrilled to learn about the existence of atheist conferences when I deconverted, because of the energy that comes from connecting with people this way. We are social animals and we thrive in these settings. Our health demonstrably suffers when we’re lonely. Our brains are adapted to flourish in these circumstances, and yes, religion can provide that.

Is religion a force for good? It CAN be. Take science as an example. We have used the tool of science to double human lifespans, decrease infant mortality 90%, and decrease maternal mortality by 99% – and that’s just since 1900. We can also use science for evil. There was a time, not so long ago, when it was simply technologically impossible to kill more than a few dozen people at a time, a few thousand with an army. In the first week of August, 1945, the United States killed 100,000 people in Japan, and tens of thousands more died from radiation over the next few months. But it was not science in itself that did this; it was people. And just like with religion, it is people who use it for good or bad. Religion, like science, just is.

We need to understand, and help others understand, that morality does not come from religion. In fact, morality predates religion and continues to shape and inform religion, whether religious people admit it or not It’s not good nor evil. Just like science, it ultimately depends on what we choose to do with it.

The panel included four participants: Aside from me, there was also KU computer-science PhD candidate Chris Redford (a.k.a. Evid3nc3 on YouTube), who happens to be one of my personal activism heros and whose YouTube videos have been an inspiration and motivation for me since long before I knew who he was. It was a huge honor for me to meet him for the first time, when I was invited last semester to give my “Is the New Testament Historically Reliable?” hour-long talk for SOMA at KU, and I cannot tell you how thrilled I was to be asked to appear on this panel with him.

The other two participants were KU law student Doug Coe, who identifies as a follower of Jesus, and who intends to be an activist against modern slavery after law school, and KU undergraduate religious-studies major & sociology minor Colton Tatham, who also identifies as a follower of Jesus. I think it’s an interesting trend, and I’ve heard this more and more lately, that people are no longer identifying as strongly as “Christians” but rather “followers of Jesus,” in the same vein as Jefferson Bethke:

It’s as though Christians are beginning to recognize, even if not admittedly, that the word “religious” has become pejorative. It seems that, more and more, there is a shift in thinking in our society, that the word “religion” brings to mind images of 9/11 and pedophile priests and megachurch pastors with $8.4 million private jets or megachurch pastors who have adulterous 3-year meth-fueled relationships with gay sex workers. I think this shift in thinking is a wonderful step in the right direction. My next article will explain why I think this is so. Until next time!

- Dave

mail@davemuscato.com

(573) 424-0420 cell/text

Dave Muscato is Vice President of MU SASHA. He is a vegetarian, LGBTQ ally, and human- & animal-welfare activist. A junior at Mizzou majoring in economics & anthropology and minoring in philosophy & Latin, Dave posts updates to the SASHA blog every Monday, Thursday, and Saturday. His website is http://www.DaveMuscato.com.

Follow Dave on Google+
Follow Dave on Twitter

Helpful resources:

Godisimaginary.com
Iron Chariots Wiki
Skeptics’ Annotated Bible / Skeptics’ Annotated Qur’an
AtheismResource.com
TalkOrigins.org

YouTubers: Evid3nc3, Thunderf00t, TheAmazingAtheist, The Atheist Experience, Edward Current, NonStampCollector, Mr. Deity, Richard Dawkins, QualiaSoup

Blogs: Greta Christina, PZ Myers, The Friendly Atheist, WWJTD?, Debunking Christianity, SkepChick

and don’t forget… other SASHA members! We are here for you, too!

Why I’m Not Donating to Jessica Ahlquist’s Scholarship Fund

Or, “It’s good to be generous, but don’t forget to think critically”

Welcome to the official MU SASHA daily blog!

First time here? Read this.

Click here to Like our Page on Facebook (or use the sidebar if you’re logged in).
Local to Columbia? Join the Facebook Group, too!

_________________________________________________________________________

Hello all,

First off, I’m thrilled for Jessica’s victory.

I met Jess at the CFI Student Leadership conference earlier this summer, and again at the SSA Conference, where we had a good half-hour conversation about her situation and her plans in the movement. We’ve been Facebook friends since then, and I’ve chatted with her online many times. She knows I am supportive of her efforts, and I’ve even written before on this blog about that—twice—and how proud I am of her. My family even popped open a bottle of champagne when we got the news about her victory. Jess is dear to me, and in no way is this article intended as an attack on her or her family; merely some honest feedback from a fellow critical-thinking advocate, an economics student studying altruism, and a friend.

The aforementioned bottle of champagne, pre-popping.

Bloggers Hemant Mehta (the Friendly Atheist) and JT Eberhard, among many others, are promoting a scholarship fund for Jessica’s college expenses, based on the precedent example of Damon Fowler’s scholarship fund last year, which last I checked had surpassed $30,000. (NB: Neither Jess nor her family initiated the creation of this scholarship fund; they are merely the beneficiaries of it). Recently, JT suggested expanding Jessica’s fund to include selling T-shirts with the slogan, “Evil Little Thing” (as a reference to Rhode Island State Representative Peter Palumbo’s faux paus), the money from which would also go toward Jess’s scholarship fund. As of today, her fund is up to around $25,000 US (not including forthcoming T-shirt sales).

I know that supporting one of our own is very exciting and feels like the right thing to do. And it is the right thing to do—Jess deserves and indeed has earned our support.

But there are plenty of ways to support someone: financially, emotionally, morally, etc. Financially, I want to make clear, is only one way to do that.

I do not support the creation of a monetary scholarship fund for Jess, and I mean this in the best possible way, but we—as rational, skeptical, critical-thinkers—should pause for a moment and consider the priorities for our donation dollars.

Before making any donation, for ethical reasons, there are certain questions we must first ask. Among them:

1) Will this donation change someone’s life for the better?

If a donation changes no one’s life for the better above and beyond what they already had, and there are other ways to use that money that would instead, it is unethical to use resources in this way. This is true whether you’re talking about donating to an animal shelter (with the goal of changing those animals’ lives for the better), or an environmental preservation fund (allowing future generations of animals and people to enjoy that land), a scholarship fund (with the goal making college more accessible to someone), etc. Surprisingly, money is often not the “bottleneck” in achieving charitable goals. Take public schooling in the USA, for example: We spent about 3 times more tax dollars per student per year, adjusted for inflation, in the 2007-8 school year than we did in in the 1961-62 school year, yet we are falling further and further behind other countries when it comes to test scores and graduation rates. Clearly, there is something else going on besides just money.

2) To what degree will this donation improve someone’s life above and beyond current conditions?

There are many inefficient charities in the world. In fact, most charities accomplish very little. Charities that demonstrably improve people’s lives are the exception, not the rule. This is because fundraising for charity is nearly always based on emotional appeals, which is a type of informal fallacy, not on demonstrated accomplishment of their goals. This is something we, as skeptics, should recognize, and something for which we should be on the look-out, when we notice our heartstrings are being tugged.

As an analogy, take, for example, this 2-minute video, which makes me cry every time. Turn on your speakers (BC = British Columbia, Canada):

As a vegetarian, animal-welfare activist, former animal-shelter employee, and shelter volunteer, my heart breaks for these animals,  and it’s not easy for me to put my emotions aside when I watch a video like this one. Makes you want to get out your wallet and pick up the phone, doesn’t it?

However, the critical-thinking side of me knows that the best thing to do, when making any economic decision, is to consider both my emotional AND rational reasoning. To paraphrase Richard Dawkins, by all means let’s allow our intuition to guide our ethics, but not so much that our brains fall out.

The question we should ask ourselves when we’re considering donating money is one of efficiency. We have an ethical obligation to ensure that our donations are being used as wisely and efficiently as humanly possible.

The video above quotes a statistic of 3,000 animals saved last year, and goes on to say that for hundreds of others animals, help came too late. The implication is that our (collective) donations can save other animals like these in the future. As critical thinkers, it’s our responsibility to ask, at what cost per animal? Are you doing everything you can to keep costs down (making all possible use of volunteers, foster homes, etc)? Are hard dollars your most urgent need? If our goal is to stop animal suffering, is this organization the most efficient one at actually accomplishing that goal? Is money even your bottleneck? (It could be things like lax local breeding laws, insufficient city services as far as animal control, insufficient legal penalties for dog-fighting or animal neglect, or lots of other things besides lack of hard dollars).

By way of example, our local animal shelter here in Columbia, MO took in over 5,000 animals last year, quite a few more than the 3,000 cited in the video. How many of these were euthanized? I don’t know; the website and donor FAQ don’t even say. From my experience there, I would guess roughly 1/3, but that is entirely speculative. Why were they euthanized? Was money even the bottleneck? Vicious animals (e.g. most of those recovered from dog-fighting operations) or fatally-injured animals cannot be put up for adoption, so money would not have helped them. Is the problem that people are bringing in their animals because they are destructive to their households? Maybe we should try to persuade local dog trainers to offer discounts and work with the shelter, if the problem is lack of training, etc. Critical thinking is how we solve problems like these, and as it turns out, money is often not really the root of the problem.

If your goal is to save animals from euthanasia, the fact is that we aren’t even given enough information, by looking at this own shelter’s website and donor FAQ, how much they need to save an animal’s life. So how on Earth can we compare the efficiency of this shelter with another animal charity with similar goals, competing for our donations? We can’t.

The reason charities don’t supply information about their efficiency is that nobody ever asks for it. In most cases they don’t even collect this data at all. This is especially true of charities who primarily solicit large numbers of small-figure donors (i.e. the ones that advertise for donations), versus those who focus on small numbers of large-figure donors.

Large donors tend to be more discriminating, and someone giving away a million dollars wants some quantifiable evidence, preferably significantly so, that their donation made a real difference. But why should a charity bother spending lots of money and time putting together all that data, when you can instead make one commercial and focus on getting 100,000 people to each donate $10, just by showing them sad pictures and providing two rather useless statistics? Especially when you consider that when a charity DOES put together all that data for a big donor, they are now in the position of having to make promises to that donor about results, which they now must keep or face some very bad PR and no donations in the future. Small donors tend not to check up on how much of a difference their donation made a year later when deciding whether or not to donate again, so it makes sense to invest in appealing to them, instead.

I am not saying that charities who focus on smaller donors are malicious nor manipulative. Most of the time, they in fact have very good intentions. But as the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. This goes for charities as well as donors. By being MORE discriminating in where we donate our money, we can in fact do even greater good with the same amount of funds. (NB: This emphatically doesn’t mean we should donate less of our money to charity, rather, just that we should ask more questions when deciding where to donate it).

This is not to say that I don’t support my humane society’s mission in terms of moral or emotional support, but it is why I don’t donate money to them, and support them in other ways instead.

There is a calculation used in charity evaluation called “room for more funding.” In other words, we want to know, to what degree would additional donations advance the mission of the fund, over and above its current assets?

As I said above, there are many ways that we can support Jessica’s future: financially, morally, emotionally, and so on. I left out perhaps the most important one, because I want to discuss it here in more detail: Networking. This is an asset Jess has in spades, one that we can help her grow even more (for free!), and, in my opinion, the reason that her scholarship fund probably does not actually have room for more funding.

The goal of ANY scholarship fund is simple: To make a college education more accessible to its beneficiaries than it would otherwise be. That’s it.

So, the first question we need to ask ourselves is, “Is a college education indeed inaccessible to Jessica right now?” In other words, will she even need help paying for college in the first place?

I propose that the answer to this question, as I say this with all due respect and love for my friend Jess, is probably “no.” I’ve no doubt that the extra money wouldn’t hurt, but is “well, it wouldn’t hurt” really the highest & best use of the limited resource of atheists’ donations?

When Jessica is ready to apply for college, one of her (and her parents’) concerns will undoubtedly be finances. It is for nearly everyone who goes to college. It’s obviously less of a concern for some than others: I doubt the topic so much as crosses the mind of Jennifer Gates, the daughter of Bill & Melinda Gates, who is 16 years old, the same age as Jessica.

However, I submit that this isn’t for the reason you’d think: I’m willing to bet that Jennifer Gates will get scholarship offers from at least dozens of schools. The reason for this is not that they think she needs help financially affording tuition (clearly she doesn’t); it’s because many schools want to be able to tell other, future applicants, as well as alumni, that “Jennifer Gates is a student here.” These schools know Jennifer Gates can afford to go anywhere she wants, and that she will not make her decision based on cost, but rather, which school she thinks is truly the best for her.

In order to so much as stand a chance at recruiting Miss Gates, all but the very top schools in the world will have to offer her a full-ride. And even among those top schools, they must still compete with each other. They know that, whatever school she chooses, she and her family will be donating many millions of dollars there for many years to come, so it is in their best interest to attract her as a student in any way legally possible.

I think that Jess Ahlquist is actually in a better bargaining position when it comes to her choice of colleges than even Jennifer Gates. The reason for this is that Miss Gates, although I’d assume she’s a credible student, has not made a name for herself in the world yet. A quick perusal of Google doesn’t turn up anything particular newsworthy outside of the fact that she’s Bill & Melinda Gates’ daughter. The only thing I could really find about her at all personally is that she rides horses.

Jessica Ahlquist, on the other hand, has her own Wikipedia page (something even Jennifer Gates lacks). Jess has appeared on ABC News, in The Huffington Post, The Washington Post, the Associated Press, etc. She has spoken at multiple major conferences already, done a Reddit AMA, and she will speak alongside Richard Dawkins, Dave Silverman, Lawrence Krauss, Dr. Greg Graffin (of Bad Religion), Tim Minchin, PZ Myers, James Randi, and others at the Reason Rally in March in Washington, DC. She has the explicit support of thousands and thousands of people around the country and the world. And she still has another year to go before applying to colleges!

When Jessica is ready to apply for colleges, she will have something even more valuable than $25,000. Consider her circumstance if she decides to apply to, say, Oxford: She will likely have little trouble getting an enthusiastic written reference and personal introduction & tour from none other than Professor Richard Dawkins himself. If she decides to apply to Harvard, she will have no trouble whatsoever getting a written reference and personal introduction from James Croft, or any number of others, and so on and so on. This list could go on for quite awhile!

There is a concept in economics, called opportunity cost, with which (I hope) everyone reading this is already familiar. The idea is simply that when you make a choice about how to spend your money (or time, or any scarce resource), the cost of that choice is not only what you pay for it, but also what you’re giving up by not spending your money (or time, etc) on your next best alternative.

There are a limited number of dollars available for donation by those supportive of separation of church & state issues. It’s important that we think critically here and ask ourselves how much help Jess really needs affording her college of choice, and if additional dollars from us is the absolute best use of our finite resources.

With Damon Fowler’s scholarship fund, his situation had some important differences: Damon’s parents were NOT supportive of his efforts, and as I understand it, he was kicked out of his parents’ house after coming out as an atheist, and had to leave the state to live with his brother. With the exception of the scholarship funds raised by his supporters (myself included), he is on his own as far as paying for college. In Jessica’s case, we don’t even know her parents’ financial situation (not that it’s any of our business), but we do know that they are supportive of her efforts (as I understand it, her father helped file the lawsuit), and as people who value critical thinking, I think it’s only appropriate that we consider whether or not her family has a true, pressing need for this money, above and beyond Damon, or the ACLU, American Atheists, the SSA, CFI, or other worthy causes to which we could donate, instead.

By donating to Jessica’s college scholarship fund, we are not donating to other organizations or young activists who may need it more. There are a lot of people, young campus leaders in the atheist movement, who cannot afford to attend the Reason Rally, or promote quality events on their own campuses.

If you want to support the future of the atheist movement in the United States, and again, I mean this in the best possible way to Jess and her family, please considering donating to the Reason Rally, American Atheists, the Secular Student Alliance, or the Center For Inquiry in honor of Jessica’s victory. The last two of these routinely help fund local events for campus skeptic groups, things like bringing in guest speakers, and setting up regional conferences to help spread awareness of atheism and introduce a younger generation to a lifetime of critical thinking and freethought. If you are interested primarily in supporting separation of church & state issues, please consider donating to the ACLU, or the Freedom From Religion Foundation, again in honor of her victory. NB: To my knowledge, donations made through all the links in this paragraph are tax-deductible; to my knowledge, donations made to Jessica’s scholarship fund are not, just FYI.

As I said above, I think that what Jess is doing is deserving of the highest praise, and of our support, but remember, support can take many forms. While it is certainly important to have nationally-renowned spokepeople for atheism like Jessica Ahlquist, it’s also very important to have well-funded local and regional leaders putting on events on their campuses, too. My only hope is that our financial support can go to where it’s not only most needed, but best used, whether you ultimately decide that is Jess’s scholarship fund itself, or another related, deserving fund.

Thank you for reading.

Dave

P.S. For an excellent series of articles on “smart giving,” I highly recommend this page: GiveWell’s “Giving 101.”

mail@davemuscato.com

(573) 424-0420 cell/text

Dave Muscato is Vice President of MU SASHA. He is a vegetarian, LGBTQ ally, and human- & animal-welfare activist. A junior at Mizzou majoring in economics & anthropology and minoring in philosophy & Latin, Dave posts updates to the SASHA blog every Monday, Thursday, and Saturday. His website is http://www.DaveMuscato.com.

Follow Dave on Google+
Follow Dave on Twitter

Helpful resources:

Godisimaginary.com
Iron Chariots Wiki
Skeptics’ Annotated Bible / Skeptics’ Annotated Qur’an
AtheismResource.com
TalkOrigins.org

YouTubers: Evid3nc3, Thunderf00t, TheAmazingAtheist, The Atheist Experience, Edward Current,NonStampCollector, Mr. Deity, Richard Dawkins, QualiaSoup

Blogs: Greta Christina, PZ Myers, The Friendly Atheist, WWJTD?, Debunking Christianity, SkepChick

and don’t forget… other SASHA members! We are here for you, too!

A comment about “Christian” bullying

Welcome to the official MU SASHA daily blog!
First time here? Read this.

Click here to Like our Page on Facebook (or use the sidebar if you’re logged in).
Local to Columbia? Join the Facebook Group, too!

_________________________________________________________________________

My friend, atheist advocate & activist, and SASHA blog guest author, Damon Fowler, posted this to Jessica Ahlquist in response to the treatment she is receiving by so-called “Christians” following the recent ruling regarding the prayer banner:

I’m really sorry you have to deal with that kind of treatment. People would always tell me “You don’t want to talk to those kinds of people anyway”, which is probably true, but it didn’t make it much better. I guess the best advice I can give is keep what friends you have close, don’t act like you’re bothered by it in front of them, and keep your online support on standby. I’m sure anyone would be willing to listen if you needed someone to talk to. I’m here and I know a bit about what you’re going through. Anyway, things will get better. You did a great thing.

My response:

I’m not trying to give unsolicited advice, but I disagree that someone should act like discrimination/bullying etc doesn’t bother them, if indeed it does (as it should!). Their behavior is not only completely unacceptable morally, but it’s also illegal, and ironically, anti-Christian. I think in some cases, in the face of egregious bullying, it can be more productive to call the bullies out on it, very publicly, especially if you have the option of “low-hanging fruit”; for example, you might say…

“Jesus said,  ’You have heard it said, love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I tell you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you’ (Matthew 5:44). Jesus said, ‘If someone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat as well’ (Matthew 5:40, Luke 6:29). Do you think that I am evil? Then remember what Jesus said about evildoers: ‘Do not rise up against an evil person; if someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn your other cheek to him as well’ (Matthew 5:39).

What you should really be doing, instead of getting mad at me, is asking yourself if you are really a Christian, or if you are what Jesus called the Pharisees, a hypocrite – the Greek word for an actor, someone who pretends to be righteous, but in reality, is selfish, prideful, and wicked. If you are really a Christian, you will do as Jesus commands, even when it’s difficult, ESPECIALLY when it’s difficult. If you are really a Christian, you will recognize your pride, your indignation, and stand up for what Jesus taught – tolerance, and peace with those who disagree with you, but most of all, forgiveness to those who persecute you. If you are really a Christian, you should be asking yourself, “Would would Jesus do?”

You believe that Jesus could work miracles, that he could do anything he could imagine with just a mere thought. When Jesus was being tortured by the Roman soldiers after his arrest, did he summon lightning to strike them dead? No, he prayed for them. When Jesus was hanging by nails through his feet and wrists on the cross, did he spit on his executioners, call them names, and threaten them? No, he asked God to forgive them.

In Romans 13, the Apostle Paul wrote, “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.” By persecuting me, you are disrespecting the judge’s decision that the banner is unconstitutional, and by disrespecting the judge, you are disrespecting God. Christians are commanded to obey the governments that God has placed over them. When the Apostle Paul wrote that, he was writing under the Roman emperor Nero, perhaps the most tyrannical and anti-Christian government in Christian history. Under Emperor Nero, Paul – who, unlike Jesus and his other apostles, was a Roman citizen – was executed, a nearly unprecedented punishment for a citizen. The Apostle Paul had every imaginable reason to fight his government, but he steadfastly refused – in fact, he encouraged obedience, because this is what Christians are commanded to do. If Saint Paul could obey the decisions of his government, even in the face of his own execution, what makes you think you don’t have to?

You call yourself a Christian; why is it that I, an atheist, am more kind than you? Jesus wanted you, as his follower, to set an example of how to treat people, regardless of whether they are Christian or not, and ESPECIALLY if they persecute you. You call yourself a Christian; why is it that I, an atheist, am more civil, more peaceful, more gentle than you?

If you choose to persecute me, if you choose to disrespect the judge’s decision, understand that, as Paul himself said, you will bring judgment on yourself. Your words and actions are bigoted and hateful, not forgiving and peaceful, as Jesus taught. You are treating me this way out of your own selfishness, bigoted intolerance, and lack of respect, love, and generosity toward your fellow man. Further, your thoughts, words, and actions are explicitly against the instructions of both Saint Paul and Jesus himself. And if you are a Christian, you YOURSELF believe that you will face judgment for this. You think that I am going to hell because I am an atheist? I stood up for the United States Constitution, even though it was difficult, even though I knew I would face hatred from hypocrites like you. And I did it with respect, kindness, and a desire for tolerance. And what do you do in return? Directly, blatantly, and pridefully disobey Jesus himself. And as the Bible says, whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it (James 2:10). So I have news for you: If you want to call yourself a Christian, you have two choices: Regardless of whether you agree with it or not, and regardless of what you think of me personally, you must respect the judge’s decision, and you must treat me with love, tolerance, peacefulness, and forgiveness, as Jesus commanded, or you will burn in hell yourself, according to your very own rules. The choice is yours.

If there’s one thing I hate, it’s having to teach someone their own damn religion. Ugh.

A note to Jess:

I want you to know that the 550+ members of SASHA are behind you 100%. You are an an inspiration, an amazing person. These “Christian” bullies, they get defensive and angry because that is how our brains respond to cognitive dissonance – when they are demonstrated to be wrong, but they cannot cope with it. They know they are wrong, but nobody likes to be wrong, and it’s easier for them to lash out at you instead. That is not only childish, selfish, and wicked, but it’s also anti-Christian. Their own religion tells them, in no uncertain terms, to love their enemies, to forgive those who persecute them, and to obey their government. Take heart in knowing that you are right, and no amount of bullying can take that away. And frankly, in terms of love, kindness, forgiveness, and tolerance, you are showing THEM how it’s done.

Keep up the great work. We’re here for you if there’s anything at all we can do to help. I’m looking forward to hanging out with you again and hearing you speak at the Reason Rally!

Dave

P.S. You’re not old enough for this yet, but here’s what we enjoyed when we got the news that you’d won

mail@davemuscato.com

(573) 424-0420 cell/text

Dave Muscato is Vice President of MU SASHA. He is a vegetarian, LGBTQ ally, and human- & animal-welfare activist. A junior at Mizzou majoring in economics & anthropology and minoring in philosophy & Latin, Dave posts updates to the SASHA blog every Monday, Thursday, and Saturday. His website is http://www.DaveMuscato.com.

Follow Dave on Google+
Follow Dave on Twitter

Helpful resources:

Godisimaginary.com
Iron Chariots Wiki
Skeptics’ Annotated Bible / Skeptics’ Annotated Qur’an
AtheismResource.com
TalkOrigins.org

YouTubers: Evid3nc3, Thunderf00t, TheAmazingAtheist, The Atheist Experience, Edward Current,NonStampCollector, Mr. Deity, Richard Dawkins, QualiaSoup

Blogs: Greta Christina, PZ Myers, The Friendly Atheist, WWJTD?, Debunking Christianity, SkepChick

and don’t forget… other SASHA members! We are here for you, too!

A Very Vegetarian Christmas

Welcome to the official MU SASHA daily blog!
First time here? Read this.

Click here to Like our Page on Facebook (or use the sidebar if you’re logged in).
Local to Columbia? Join the Facebook Group, too!

_________________________________________________________________________

So my mother, a deist raised Jewish, asked me last week if there was anything special I’d like for dinner on Christmas (my dad is a deist Roman-Catholic). They are having a bunch of people over and she wanted my input, since she knows I’m a vegetarian for ethical reasons.

I explained that while if it were truly up to me, my preference would be a vegan dinner, I wouldn’t presume to insist on that for everyone. I try to eat vegan at home and at least vegetarian when I go out, but I don’t complain when I’m not the one doing the cooking. I said that if she wants to feature meat, I would personally feel better about fish instead of ham or beef, since fish are, for the most part, less intelligent and less able to suffer than cows or pigs. She thanked me for my input.

Today, she told me very proudly that she got a nice salmon just for me, and that the rest of the family, and our other dinner guests, will be having a 5-pound beef tenderloin.

I know, I know; first-world problems.

Hope you’re having a great holiday, everyone I’ll join everyone else in wishing Isaac Newton a happy posthumous birthday, IO SATVRNALIA, and Merry Festivus. This is actually a really rough day for me, but hey, it’s 3:34 PM and none of us have killed each other yet, so I can’t complain too much.

Take care,

Dave

mail@davemuscato.com

(573) 424-0420 cell/text

Dave Muscato is Vice President of MU SASHA. He is a vegetarian, LGBTQ ally, and human- & animal-welfare activist. A junior at Mizzou majoring in economics & anthropology and minoring in philosophy & Latin, Dave posts updates to the SASHA blog every Monday, Thursday, and Saturday. His website is http://www.DaveMuscato.com.

Follow Dave on Google+
Follow Dave on Twitter

Helpful resources:

Godisimaginary.com
Iron Chariots Wiki
Skeptics’ Annotated Bible / Skeptics’ Annotated Qur’an
AtheismResource.com
TalkOrigins.org

YouTubers: Evid3nc3, Thunderf00t, TheAmazingAtheist, The Atheist Experience, Edward Current,NonStampCollector, Mr. Deity, Richard Dawkins, QualiaSoup

Blogs: Greta Christina, PZ Myers, The Friendly Atheist, WWJTD?, Debunking Christianity, SkepChick

and don’t forget… other SASHA members! We are here for you, too!

A response to Richard Carrier

Welcome to the official MU SASHA daily blog!
First time here? Read this.

Click here to Like our Page on Facebook (or use the sidebar if you’re logged in).
Local to Columbia? Join the Facebook Group, too!

_________________________________________________________________________

In Richard Carrier’s recent post at FreeThoughtBlog, http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/87, he takes aim at arguments for vegetarianism.  He spends most of his time responding to arguments for vegetarianism from economics considerations, like the inefficient use of water, grain, and other resources, and responding to arguments from environmental concerns, like the impact of factory farming on global warming.  I think there are good responses to his claims in those extended sections, but I won’t be able to address them here.  Instead, I’ll look at his brief treatment of why being a vegetarian for moral reasons is irrational.  I’ll state upfront that I’m a vegetarian on moral grounds, so I suppose I have a dog in this fight (maybe that’s a bad metaphor, what with animal welfare being the topic…).  I’m a grad student studying deontic logic, the logic of moral obligation, so whether a moral position is rational or not is near and dear to my heart anyway.

I’m not a dogmatic vegetarian.  I read Peter Singer’s book, Animal Liberation, and it convinced me with its philosophical and scientific arguments.  To cease being a vegetarian, I’d need a good argument against Singer’s case.  I don’t think Richard Carrier has presented such a case.  This disappoints me, as I much enjoyed the taste of meat, when I ate it.

Carrier is responding to a question posed by a commenter regarding the application of Carrier’s own moral philosophy.  Carrier holds that it is a moral fact (empirically discoverable by science) that compassion is a moral virtue.  The commenter asks if it follows from this that one ought to be a vegetarian.  Carrier denies the implication, stating instead, “being a vegetarian merely out of compassion for animals is irrational (it’s just another kind of phobia based on false associations between animals and people)…”  His argument is as follows:

Accordingly I think being a vegetarian out of “compassion” is irrational. I mean that in the classic sense: it’s a non sequitur, and thus illogical. It’s to treat animals like people, which they are not. I’ve looked and listened far and wide and there is just no logically valid argument that proceeds from “I ought to be compassionate” to “I ought to be a vegetarian.” Farming and eating animals is simply not evil, for the reason I stated: our own overall life satisfaction depends on being compassionate, and compassion compels us not to enjoy or want pointless torment to exist, no matter what or who is experiencing it. It would cause you pain, and thus diminish your life satisfaction, to be a cruel or wholly indifferent person. But destroying an animal humanely is not cruel. And it is not destroying a person. Again, an animal’s life is indifferent to when it dies, because it does not become anything and has no awareness of being something. Thus eating animals is fine as long as you aren’t torturing them (see my brief on this as the atheist correspondent for GodContention.com).

He must mean that there is no logically sound argument that goes from “I ought to be compassionate” to “I ought to be a vegetarian.”  It is easy to construct a valid argument.  Something like:

1. I ought to be compassionate.

2. If I ought to be compassionate, then I ought to care about some non-human animals.

3. If I ought to care about some non-human animals, then I ought to be a vegetarian.

4. Therefore, I ought to be a vegetarian.

This argument is valid.  But, it probably has a false premise, like maybe premise 3.  That must be what Carrier means when he says he has seen no valid argument: he hasn’t seen a valid argument with all true premises.  So, he hasn’t seen a sound argument to that effect yet.  Maybe not, but I think I can give a sound argument for a slightly weaker position, that one ought not contribute to factory farming.

1.  I ought to be compassionate.

2.  If I ought to be compassionate, then I ought to care about the suffering of beings other than myself.

3.  If I ought to care about the suffering of others, then I ought not contribute to any sources of unnecessary suffering of beings other than myself.

4.  The factory farming system in America is a source of unnecessary suffering of beings other than myself.

5. Therefore, I ought not contribute to the factory farming system in America.

I think that the moral reasons offered in defense of vegetarianism can really only establish this weaker conclusion.  It does not say that eating meat is morally wrong, and it does not say that killing animals is morally wrong.  Neither does it say that these things are permissible; it doesn’t speak to them.  I think the best way not to contribute to factory farming is to stop purchasing its products.  The easiest way to be sure that one is not purchasing factory farmed products is to become a vegetarian.  Of course this applies only to the normal American who is in my position.  If you own a farm that raises livestock humanely, then the argument simply does not apply to you; it is easy for you to avoid factory farmed meat.  For the rest of us, it is easiest to just abstain for the most part.

If Carrier is to reject the above argument, (1-5), he’d have to argue that one of the premises is false.  It is a valid argument.  Which premise might he reject?

Premise 1 is his claim.

Premise 2 is based on any reasonable definition of ‘compassion’.  I went to wikipedia.

He may disagree with 3.  He knows that when I say “beings,” I mean to include many non-human animals in the class.  I don’t think he wants to deny this, though, because he seems to tacitly accept the idea, when he says, “for the reason I stated: our own overall life satisfaction depends on being compassionate, and compassion compels us not to enjoy or want pointless torment to exist, no matter what or who is experiencing it.” [my emboldening].  So, premise 3 seems to gain Carrier’s endorsement.  The issue of what beings count for moral consideration is not as simple as drawing a line around all and only humans.  I think Bentham proposed the best solution when he said,

What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog, is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?

Well, can non-human animals suffer?  This is a question of biology and a reasonable agreement of what counts as suffering.  We do not anthropomorphize non-human animals by stating, “A negative response to noxious stimuli that reaches the hippocampus and amygdala indicates the capacity to suffer,” or something similar to that.  One is not merely looking at non-human animals reactions, projecting emotion onto their behaviors, and deciding they can suffer.  The relevant parts of our brains are similar enough to cows, pigs, and chickens, that we can reasonably expect that they operate similarly.

Here is a great post by PZ, responding to William Lane Craig’s assertion that non-human animals can’t suffer in any morally relevant way.  He gives pretty good reasons to think non-human animals are capable of suffering.

Clearly Carrier thinks 4 is false.  Premise (4) is mostly an empirical question about the actual living conditions of non-human animals in American factory farms.  It is difficult to collect reliable data on this issue, because both sides of the debate have reason to exaggerate in one direction or the other, and it is difficult to simply go look and see for oneself. Clearly the factory farmers want to release only images that make things look chummy and healthy, the epitome of the idea evoked by “farmland”, with cows lazily grazing, a handful of chickens clucking around the coop, and maybe a few pigs rolling around in their muddy pens.  Clearly PETA wants to release only disturbing images that evoke something close to the horrors of war.  Which side is more capable of producing misleading information?  The owners of the system, or the people banned from the premises, who must go undercover, risking felony charges in several states.  I think Singer makes a compelling case that the animals do in fact suffer from the living conditions institutionalized by factory farming.

The key to Carrier’s argument above is the following claim:

But destroying an animal humanely is not cruel

I agree with this, although I know many angry, evangelical-type vegetarians would disagree.  Definitely Peter Singer would agree.  The trouble is, the moral argument against factory farming is not about how the animals are destroyed.  But even if it were, Carrier produced no evidence to support his claim that the current system does implement humane methods of destruction.  I’ll just assume he’s right, that the methods used by factory farms in America to destroy the animals is humane.  This still misses the moral argument’s point, that the living conditions for the animals are what cause the unnecessary suffering.  Now, he has poisoned the well a bit by declaring in his post that the conditions of factory farming are misreported.  So, I’m sure no matter what evidence I produce, it will be an instance of misreporting.  He claims that “When you investigate the actual conditions on most farms, especially those vending major industries like KFC or McDonalds, you find they are not as bad as PETA videos claim,” but he does not produce any evidence to this effect.  He claims that, once one ignores the outliers where atrocities occur, we see that animal welfare activists often misconstrue what is actually good for the animal.  He doesn’t provide any evidence for what the actual statistics, sans outliers, are.

A lady sticking her arm into a cow's stomach.

pigs in a factory farm.

A cursory Google search of “living conditions in factory farms” produces a plethora of images and videos, not all from PETA.  Are we to assume that these are all mere outliers, somehow planned and exploited by the subversive animal welfare groups?  Are we to assume that all the websites documenting the ethically unfit conditions are spreading falsehoods?  Even wikipedia???!! I will concede that it is possible that all of these resources are misleading, but it will take a lot more than Carrier’s word that an investigation yields ethically permissible conditions to convince me, due to the only evidence I’ve been able to find showing otherwise.

Responses like Carrier’s are the norm in the skeptic community, as far as I can tell.  It is the consequence of a strange cultural bias in America for large amounts of meat consumption, and what Peter Singer calls “Speciesism.”  An objective, dispassionate reading of both Singer and Carrier make it pretty clear that Carrier’s response to the moral arguments is a hardcore case of special pleading, with little substance, and much rhetoric. Rather, Singer’s argument rests on solid science and compelling moral principles.

Because I know skeptics care not one shit about what I think, but do care about what Carrier thinks and Richard Dawkins thinks, I leave you with a quote from Dawkins about the cultural roots of speciesism, from The Blind Watchmaker,

Such is the breathtaking speciesism of our Christian-inspired attitudes, the abortion of a single human zygote (most of them are destined to be spontaneously aborted anyway) can arouse more moral solicitude and righteous indignation than the vivisection of any number of intelligent adult chimpanzees! [...] The only reason we can be comfortable with such a double standard is that the intermediates between humans and chimps are all dead.

This continuum from the human species, through chimpanzees, and on through other species, is a clear lesson that we learn from evolutionary biology.  Dawkins mentions chimpanzees, but the point stands equally well for pigs, cows, and to a lesser extent chickens.

Here are Richard Dawkins and Peter Singer discussing the moral lessons we can learn from Darwin.

_________________________________________________________________________

Seth Kurtenbach is a philosophy PhD student at the University of Missouri.  His research focuses on applications of formal logic and game theory to questions about knowledge and rationality.  He is growing a mighty beard, in order to increase his philosophical powers [EDIT: He recently shaved his mighty beard, and has thus lost all of his philosophical powers.    ].  Feel free to contact Seth at SJK7v7@mail.missouri.edu with inquiries about philosophy, logic, guest blogging, or visiting to give a presentation!

Helpful resources:

Godisimaginary.com
Iron Chariots Wiki
Skeptics’ Annotated Bible / Skeptics’ Annotated Qur’an
AtheismResource.com
TalkOrigins.org

YouTubers: Evid3nc3, Thunderf00t, TheAmazingAtheist, The Atheist Experience, Edward Current, NonStampCollector, Mr. Deity, Richard Dawkins, QualiaSoup

Blogs: Greta Christina, PZ Myers, The Friendly Atheist, WWJTD?, Debunking Christianity, SkepChick, Rationally Speaking.

Dave’s Mailbag, Thursday 9/22/11

Welcome to the official MU SASHA daily blog!
First time here? Read this.
If you like this post, please upvote it on Reddit.
Update 9/24 @ 6:55 AM: Redditors, you are AWESOME! We just broke our previous records of most visitors in a 24-hour period (in only 4 hours and 8 minutes!) AND our record for most views to a single article of all time! (This is our previous record-holding blog post with 2,874 visitors in 24 hours and 5,352 views of all time). Thank you for your amazing upvotes and please continue re-posting on Facebook/Twitter/Google+! We are a DAILY BLOG so please subscribe We are at 4,632 visitors since midnight/5,524 total views and still counting. Please enjoy; we’re so thrilled to have you here!

Click here to Like our Page on Facebook (or use the sidebar if you’re logged in).
Local to Columbia? Join the Facebook Group, too!

                                                                                                

Hello all!

I regularly receive emails about my articles here; depending on the nature of the message, I sometimes get one that I think is better served with a public response. Last night I received the following, presumably in response to my blog post about religious identity vs. practice in America, and thought you all might be interested:

Dave,

You are an asshole. In a depressed society where kids are turning to identity in gangs, and their parents are working as hard as possible to keep them in church based programs and out of trouble, you are running your mouth in opposition. Really dude…you are pathetic. No one has to “identify themselves” as you say. These are churches set up to create a positive identity for a child, and you inflect that kids are forced to go to church. The church in some poor depressed neighborhoods is the very outlet for safe harbor for children…

[sender's name withheld by Dave]

Sender,

Thank you for your message. To make sure I understand your position, your claims are:

1) We live in a depressed society
2) Kids are turning to identity in gangs
3) Parents work to keep their kids in church-based programs
4) …and out of trouble
5) No one has to “identify themselves”
6) These churches [in poor, depressed neighborhoods] are set up to create a positive identity for children
7) Churches in some of these neighborhoods are a safe harbor for children

Let’s break this down:

As a student of economic anthropology, one of the things I study is quantifying and analyzing data about social welfare, the overall well-being of societies. There are a couple of ways to assess your claim. You didn’t mention where you’re writing from, but considering you said “we live,” I’m presuming we’re both from the United States. The HDI (Human Development Index) is the most common composite statistic used to rank countries by level of human development. It’s a comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education, and standards of living for countries worldwide.

The United States is among the highest in the world when it comes to human development. In fact, using 2010 data (the latest available), we rank at #4, with an HDI of 0.902, behind only Norway, Australia, and New Zealand.

Now, human happiness is not totally dependent on life expectancy, literacy, education, and standards of living. People are happy or depressed for all sorts of reasons, many of them subjective:

My ex, Bekka, took the above picture during her Peace Corps service in Liberia, West Africa. These are her brothers and sisters from her host family during training. They are all smiles basking in the attention, and from what I understand talking to her, some of the hardest-working, gentlest, and nicest people you could hope to meet. Liberia is one of the poorest countries on Earth, ranking 162nd on the Human Development index, with a GDP per capita of $392, or about $1.07/day. It is also one of the most religious, with approximately 100% of the population self-identifying with a religious tradition (mostly Christianity, also Islam and indigenous religions). Liberia recently went through two terrible back-to-back civil wars, in which about 1 out of 7 people in the entire country died, and unemployment is still around 90% (!), with 85% of the population living below the international poverty line of $1.25/day purchasing-power parity. Lest readers retort, “Well, I don’t know what $1.25 can buy you in Liberia. Maybe you could live like a king on $1.25/day there,” well, that’s what purchasing-power parity means. In other words, 85% of the population lives on less than what you could buy in the United States for $1.25/day in US dollars ($456.25/year).

I think that, if your claim that we live in a depressed society is true (it’s not; “depressed” is a relative term meaning “in a state of relative unhappiness”; according to 2006 figures, we rank fairly high, at #26 on the Satisfaction with Life index; see also this link – it’s not even that we’re not below-average when it comes to happiness; we’re actually in the top 1/7), we ought to examine what the happiest societies are doing differently than we are.

You imply that promoting atheism, as I do, leads young people away from church and into gangs, and therefore is damaging to the goal of lifting our society out of its depressed state. If I have misunderstood your logic, please let me know, as I don’t desire to tear down a straw man.

We can test your claim empirically. I have already addressed that this is a loaded claim in that our society is, in fact, not in a depressed state by any of several quantitative measures. Even if that were true, though, if atheism leads to crime, then the most atheist societies should have the most crime, especially gang-related crime as you are concerned with. We can also test your claim the other way around: If religion leads to less crime in society, than the most-religious societies should have the least crime, especially when it comes to gang-related crime as you stressed.

I could quote to you a bunch of statistics, graphs, charts, maps, and studies that demonstrate beyond any reasonable refutation that the opposite is true: The most atheistic societies (Sweden, Denmark, Norway, etc) have the least crime, and the most religious societies have the most. I can’t help passing up two quick examples: South American & Mexican drug cartels, and the Italian mob, both in countries with the largest populations (and proportions of the population) of Roman Catholics in the world. If anything, it appears that the hierarchical example of Roman Catholicism may have taught them how to organize their crime! To demonstrate the absurdity of this claim, I’m could say two words to you that you’ve never heard back-to-back before: “Swedish mobsters.” Exactly.

Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) receiving The Order of St. Sebastian (The Godfather, Part III). Did you know that “Corleone” is actually Swedish, not the name of a city in Sicily, Italy as portrayed in the films?

But instead, I’m going to follow Phil Zuckerman’s advice [the sociologist at Pitzer College who wrote an ethnographic book about his studies in Denmark & Sweden called "Societies Without God: What The Least-Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment"]:

Don’t get sucked into arguments about “Can we be good without God?” Don’t try to convince theists that secular morality is actually more rational and, well, more moral. Rather, just insist that morality is ultimately revealed and shown through human action and deed. And we can plainly see that the least religious countries and states are generally the most moral, peaceful, and humane, while the most religious countries and states are the most crime-ridden, corrupt, and socially troubled. End of discussion.

Let’s move on to the United States, since that will give us data most applicable to our real concern, religiosity vs. crime & depression [of society in general] in this country. I think two complementary facts should demonstrate to you the fundamental flaw in your claim: In the US, in states with the highest percentages of atheists, the murder rate is lower than average. In the most-religious US states, the murder rate is higher than average (PDF link). The National Gang Intelligence Center, a subdivision of the Department of Justice, put together a nice map illustrating where gang activity is concentrated in the United States:

A vast majority of gang activity in Illinois can be attributed to the fact that it contains Chicago (see below). This makes it an outlier in the Midwestern states. Most gang activity in the rest of the country (California, Florida, New Mexico) is immigrant-related, almost exclusively from Mexico & Latin-America (the Latin Kings gang, which is the largest & most-organized in the United States, is actually based in Chicago).

ARIS (American Religious Identification Survey) at Trinity College produced this excellent video lecture with Professor Juhem Navarro-Rivera explaining the demographics of religious belief among Latinos in the United States (roughly 21 of every 25 Latinos in the United States identify as Catholic/Christian):

You can download the full report as a PDF here. I can’t help but mention the similarities of the map on the cover of the above report to the map of gang members per capita I posted above from the Department of Justice. Not to say that correlation implies causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy), nor to imply that all Latinos are involved with gangs, but read the reports, look at the statistics, and see for yourself: Self-identification with a religion is highly positively correlated with criminality, both in the United States by state, and in countries around the world. Whether the lower crime rates among atheists is due to their atheism or a third factor is something we should definitely look into, but what is clear is that advocating atheism cannot be said, reasonably, to lead to higher crime rates, nor to depression as a society. In fact, the data suggest the opposite.

If that were true, when we compare a map of religious adherence to a map of crime rates, we should expect to see TWO things:

1) The areas with the MOST adherence should have LOW crime rates

2) The areas with the LEAST adherence should have HIGH crime rates

What do we see when we look at the data?

Click for source data

At best, the correlation is inconclusive. For certain states, it seems to be the opposite – the more religion, the more crime; for others, religiosity and crime don’t seem to be linked.

There is a myth, perpetuated by theists, that religion is necessary in order to keep people from becoming criminals. You made the claim that no one has to “identify themselves,” and then go on to say that churches provide a positive identity for children. Well, which is it? You seem to be implying (again, correct me if I’m wrong) that without a religious identity, children would fall into the trap of 1) no identity or 2) a criminal or gang identity.

This is a false dichotomy. You are ignoring the obvious alternative of an atheist identity. As a demographic, atheists have fewer divorces, abortions, and STDs, and lower poverty rates, homicide rates, overall crime rates, and teen pregnancy rates. As a demographic, atheists have higher IQs, incomes, education rates, and literacy rates, and more Nobel Prizes, university professorships, etc. You paint the picture as though without after-school church programs or Sunday School, youth would be lost. You’re forgetting philosophy clubs, science fairs, Camp Quest, the wonderful world of reading, of history, mathematics, biology, COLLEGE, hope for the future, and so on.

Religion is for people who have never matured in their understanding of ethics. Religion teaches a child’s view of ethics, that “being good” means “obeying your parent.” It gives a moral blank check to those bold enough, dishonest enough, to claim to speak for God. Atheism means looking at ethical questions as an adult among other adults, considering ethics as a means of maintaining peace and cooperation among equals, so that all may pursue happiness within the limits that ethics defines. – John B. Hodges

It seems to me that the best thing we can do is teach ethics to young people. You may argue that teaching religion IS teaching ethics, but I would ask, “How’s that workin’ out for ya?” and point you, again, to the expert on this topic, Phil Zuckerman, and his quotation: “We can plainly see that the least religious countries and states are generally the most moral, peaceful, and humane, while the most religious countries and states are the most crime-ridden, corrupt, and socially troubled.”

What we need is to teach young people how to think critically, how to understand the social and psychological pressures of what draws people to criminal behavior, and the alternative: Not more religion, not more thinking that if you just close your eyes really tightly and cross your fingers, society will magically improve, but more science, more reading, more knowledge – the only things that have ever demonstrably led to actual improvement in human societies, as Steven Pinker aptly points out in this linked video, tipping exponentially toward a better world starting with the Age of Enlightenment in the 16th century, when science really began to shape how we view (and govern) ourselves.

We need to teach young people to be more skeptical, not more obedient. Teaching obedience is not only demonstrably ineffective (see above) but leads to rebellion (at best), or worse, the idea that people can do whatever they want – no matter how disgusting, inhuman, cruel, and savage it may be – because your invisible friend will still be your buddy and let you live in his invisible mansion when it’s over. Teaching young people how to read, and teaching them philosophy, leads – demonstrably – to more ethical behavior. And as Phil Zuckerman said, that is really what our concern is in all of this.

If I have misrepresented your view, please let me know exactly what you meant to say, and I will respond. I hope this has helped you (and other readers) see that religiosity is, actually, a bad influence when it comes to moral, pro-social thought & behavior.

Take care,

Dave

mail@davemuscato.com
(573) 424-0420 cell/text

If you like this post, please upvote it on Reddit.

Dave Muscato is Vice President of MU SASHA. He is a vegetarian, LGBTQ ally, and human- & animal-welfare activist. A junior at Mizzou majoring in economics & anthropology and minoring in philosophy & Latin, he posts updates to the SASHA blog every Monday, Thursday, and Saturday. His website is http://www.DaveMuscato.com.

Follow Dave on Google+
Follow Dave on Twitter

Helpful resources:

Godisimaginary.com
Iron Chariots Wiki
Skeptics’ Annotated Bible / Skeptics’ Annotated Qur’an
AtheismResource.com
TalkOrigins.org

YouTubers: Evid3nc3, Thunderf00t, TheAmazingAtheist, The Atheist Experience, Edward Current, NonStampCollector, Mr. Deity, Richard Dawkins, QualiaSoup

Blogs: Greta Christina, PZ Myers, The Friendly Atheist, WWJTD?, Debunking Christianity, SkepChick

and don’t forget… other SASHA members! We are here for you, too!