Life Without Faith

Last month, guest contributor Nicole Gugliucci gave us a blow by blow break down of the VCU debate between Christopher Hitchens and Frank Turek (part 1, part 2).

Thanks to atheist extraordinaire Larry M (who also attended the debate), for posting this beautiful video of the debate:

Enjoy!

Brother Richard


Christopher Hitchens/Frank Turek Debate from Larry M on Vimeo.

I am continually preaching about "coming out" of the religious closet. So I am excited to bring to your attention an important sociological study that I helped develop. It is a descriptive and exploratory survey on "coming out" and living as an atheist. I hope you will take time to participate and help spread the word by forwarding the survey to your friends and family members who are atheist. If you have a website, please post a link to it.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=FngPf17nsv1PWLSsOzS_2ffw_3d_3d

Several months ago, I began assisting Dr. Tom Arcaro from Elon University in designing this survey. Once the data has been analyzed we will seek to publish it not only in a trade journal, but in a magazine the general public would read. It is our goal to use the information gathered to encourage others to come out of the religious closet and to destigmatize atheism.

Brother Richard

Below Dr. Arcaro explains the purpose of this study:

In the academic world, sabbaticals come around only once in seven years and each faculty person knows to invest that precious time away from the classroom effectively. In my case, when the time came to write my sabbatical proposal I had recently finished reading all of the books from the “Four Horseman of the Apocalypse”, namely Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett. I have been reading Dennett and Dawkins for years as I followed closely their work in evolutionary psychology (I have written several essays that touch on this topic; go to http://facstaff.elon,edu/arcaro), and when Dawkin’s The God Delusion came out I devoured it quickly, finding myself in agreement with much of what he said.

The semester after I read Dawkin's book, I had an Intro to Sociology student who needed a research project, and she and I surveyed over 100 undergraduates using Dawkin’s scale of belief (he introduces in the first chapter). Those data indicated what I already knew from living in North Carolina for the last 23 years: I was living in the Bible Belt. That short experience with researching people’s religious beliefs whet my appetite for more in depth data, and I began some preliminary reading of what other sociologists had written about being an atheist, particularly in the so-called Bible Belt where I lived. I found some reasonably interesting work, but none that sated my interest in the social consequences of coming out public as an atheist.

As a bit more background, I have been working for a number of years on the issue of HIV and AIDS and have studied in some detail the problem of the social stigma attached to being HIV+. A good friend of mine, Anita Isaacs from Oshakati, Namibia, became HIV+ in the late 90’s and then came out public in November of 2002. This brave act changed her life and has defined her ever since. In no way do I want to say that being HIV+ is the same as being an atheist, but what I do argue is that the phenomena of stigmatization, described so well by the sociologist Irving Goffman in his classic book Stigma, is the same in both cases: both are devalued social statuses.

Immediately after the topic of my sabbatical research was published on our university web site I began getting calls and emails from colleagues who supported my work and wished me well. Many of them shared their own stories of being in the closet about their atheism and, in fact, the survey that I am asking you to take was written with the critical feedback of many colleagues both on campus and elsewhere. Two colleagues who also happen to be lesbians talked to me about the differences and similarities of dealing with the social responses to their sexuality and their atheism.

Why am I doing this research? As a tenured full professor I have no pressing need to add to my curriculum vita. My motivation for this research is to reach out to other atheists and provide them with an additional sounding board for their experiences. I want to describe the population of self-proclaimed atheists and ferret out some of the correlations between their gender, age, and other demographic variables with their responses to the array of questions that are posed in the survey. After the data is collected, I will openly share the summarized results both in the popular press (and, of course, appropriate web sites) and in sociological journals. I pledge to do my best to describe, analyze, summarize and present the data carefully and, importantly, to absolutely maintain the confidentiality of each participant.

Ultimately I hope that this survey and the publication of the results will, in some small way, encourage more of us to more openly be who we are, atheists.

Finally, I want to publicly thank “Brother Richard” for working closely with me on the final versions of the survey and, more importantly, for all of his patience as we developed this project over the last five months. That he shares my vision and is willing to use his resources to maximize the exposure of this survey is a great gift to me and to the atheist community.

What happened to the maverick?

The John McCain of 2000 often reprimanded the religious right. He refused to vote along party lines and was criticized for it by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. He was labeled a RHINO (Republican In Name Only), and his popularity was disparaged as the downfall of the Right.

I, like many other progressive conservatives, had hoped that, like Clinton, McCain was appealing to the right to simply get elected. We were optimistic that once in office; the black sheep would return to bring reform to Washington. The closer we get to November 4th, the less likely this is going to happen. It seems the patriot who was able to endure hideous torture, has been broken by his desire to be President.

During a 2007 debate, McCain was in favor of funding embryonic stem cell research. Since then he has “flip-flopped.” His new position is more extreme than President Bush’s. Here are some excerpts from a Wired article:

Republican presidential nominee John McCain would criminalize a promising branch of stem cell research, according to a statement issued by the candidate's campaign. Though such legislation would probably not survive Congress, he might extend President Bush's much-criticized limitation of embryonic stem cell research.

"I read the statement as a bad omen for stem cell research under a McCain administration," said George Daley, a leukemia researcher at the Harvard Stem Cell Institute.

The McCain campaign responded on Monday to questions about stem cell research posed by ScienceDebate2008, a nonpartisan science advocacy group.

In his statement, McCain at first claimed to support ESC research. However, he said "clear lines should be drawn that reflect a refusal to sacrifice moral values and ethical principles for the sake of scientific progress" -- a qualification that disturbed many scientists and bioethicists with its ambiguity.

McCain also took a harder line than the Bush administration with somatic cell nuclear transfer, better known as therapeutic cloning -- a cutting-edge process that could some day provide personalized embryonic stem cell therapies. Though currently legal, McCain would outlaw the technique.

"He cannot be trusted to be a supporter of embryonic stem cell research," said University of Pennsylvania bioethicist Art Caplan. "He is moving toward a straight pro-life stance and this sort of answer can only be read as such."

Robert Lanza, chief scientific officer of Advanced Cell Technology, noted that the American Academy for the Advancement of Science, the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Medical Association all support SCNT. McCain "would fine and/or imprison scientists for this work," said Lanza.

Thomas Murray, president of the Hastings Center, a nonpartisan bioethics think tank, said that McCain's proposition would almost certainly be rejected by Congress, which has repeatedly rejected ESC-criminalizing legislation. Instead, he said, McCain was likely trying to placate religious fundamentalists.

"But if implemented, this could have quite radical implications," he said. "It's a far leap from anything resembling current U.S. policy."

Brother Richard
For my moral argument, check out this article on stem cells.

Below is the second and final part of Nicole Gugliucci’s “blow by blow” coverage of the VCU debate between Hitchens and Turek. Nicole is a graduate student, working on a PhD in radio astronomy instrumentation at the University of Virginia. (Read Part I).

VCU: Debate between Christopher Hitchens & Frank Turek Part II

Hitchens points out that god is real, at least to some people. Just as heaven is real, and hell is real in the fear of children, and limbo is real to distraught Catholic mothers who have lost their unbaptized babies, even after the Catholic Church has said that limbo does not exist. Hitchens sees it as his mission of sorts to overthrow the type of people that would use this type of lying and fear to subjugate people under their supposed moral superiority. (May I say, wow?) He points out that religion in general claims infallibility of its belief system. In particular, the Catholic Church claims infallibility of the papal teachings, and yet the late John Paul II had to apologize for the mistakes in the Church's past, such as the Holocaust and the Crusades. And people of faith just have to accept that. An atheist such as himself will not take that for an answer, and he has seen no convincing argument to date that says that god should exist.

Hitchens accuses Turek of “tap dancing” from deism to theism to Christianity in his arguments, and wonders how he knows which of the many gods throughout history, or which personal god, is this creator. He links religion to servility, wishful thinking, and ignorance. After all, there is no need for gods or supernatural explanations when natural explanations do a much better job. (Here, a reference to Laplace would have been appropriate, but again, I am astronomy-biased.) And even still, how does one get from a deistic designer to a personal god that answers prayers and all the rest? He calls the argument from morality “egregious.” After all, instructions from on high reflect a certain need for servility that is just callous and cruel in his point of view. He challenges the audience to think of one moral action or thought that a believer can do or think that a non-believer cannot. (It's hard, and I couldn't do it.) Then, think of an immoral action or thought that a believer can commit that a non-believer cannot. His examples include suicide bombing and genital mutilation. After all, instructions from on high certainly trump all else. Here, I digress to disagree slightly. Although I understand that religion is dangerous and allows for these sorts of atrocities to be considered moral, I do not think that these atrocities would not exist without religion. There are a host of irrational beliefs that need not be supernatural to encourage such immorality and claim superior authority. Racism, tribalism, patriotism, hero-worship, and many more can be used and misused without religion to attain these ends.

I'll get back to Hitchens's argument, where he points out that all the cosmological evidence points to a “heat death” of the universe. How does theism's god allow for that? How does he or she or it allow for suffering? This creator is simply a totalitarian monarch, the ultimate “Big Brother” that looks for your mistakes and can convict you of thought-crime. Why would we “wish to live as an abject slave?”

Next, each speaker got five minutes for rebuttal, and then asked questions of each other directly. This was followed by questions from the audience that were written on index cards and collected by ushers. I'll try and keep this brief and point out the highlights, since after all; video should be available soon to satiate your hunger for the whole thing! Turek claims that other gods, such as Zeus, do not fit his notion of a personal god (isn't that convenient) in response to the challenge to explain why his god is better than all the rest. He challenges Hitchens to a second debate in which they can argue New Testament theology and evidence, which prompts Hitchens to later point out that Turek never talks about his own faith, but instead hides behind scanty attempts at evidence in order to support his unsupportable world view. Hitchens also points out the obvious fact that theism asks us to turn away from scientific and moral inquiry. Here, I interject to mention Laplace again and his lack of a need for a “god hypothesis” in the motions of the planets. I am particularly moved by Neil deGrasse Tyson's observations that Newton may have been able to figure out perturbation theory before Laplace if he hadn't given up and said “god did it” when faced with scientific difficulty.

Hitchens conservatively estimates that homo sapiens has existed on the planet, at least once nearing extinction, a fate which has consumed at least 98% of the world's species, for 70,000 years. First, this answers Turek's point about the perfect design of the universe for life. After all, in this wide universe, only an immeasurably tiny speck that is this planet is known to support life, and is in precarious balance for life as we know it. Humans have just barely adapted to survive here, and not with the best of design either. The designer isn't very good. Also, monotheism has existed for only 5,000 years at most, so what took heaven so long to intervene in our species?

The period in which they questioned each other convinced me that each man was talking past the other. Not on purpose, mind you, but each starting set of assumptions is so different, that they just couldn't accept the basic premises of some of the questions. Turek kept harping on determinism and claiming to have all the answers, such as the belief that god will intervene before the universe's heat death. Hitchens cannot possibly respond rationally to this and says, “Have it your way.” At one point, Turek keeps hounding on his “molecules” and starts to ask, “But where does evil come from...?” and Hitchens interrupts with, “Religion. Where does good come from? Humanism.” Turek proceeds to Godwin the whole discussion and Hitchens replies that Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito, and the like were anything but secular. I guess that answers my earlier disagreement with Hitchens that religion is not the only irrational, destructive belief system. Hitchens, finally, at one point, tells the audience that Turek has not produced on shred of scientific evidence for his claims of a creator.

Many more points are discussed, such as abortion, the meaning of a conscience, evidence that would change one's mind, and a little bit about sex. At the end, Hitchens declines to make a closing statement, since he feels he has already made his case (”shot my wad” was the actual wording). Instead, he asks if anyone in the audience has a question for him. One man near the front raises his hand and asks why, if he does not believe in a god, does he spend so much time refuting one? Hitchens's answer is one of the most beautiful things I have ever heard, and I will not do it enough justice except to say that he has been galvanized by the events of 9/11 to fight the evil in the world brought on by religion and to oppose theocracy. Man, what a hero. Turek then closes with a summary of his (awful) points and a little bit of weirdness. He says that even though Hitchens seems to say, “There is no god and I hate him,” that god knows there is a Hitchens and.... wait for it.... wait for it... god loves him. Half the audience groaned while the other half applauded. Amazing. Turek then likens Hitchens to an Old Testament prophet and even to Jesus, calling the supposedly religious away from tradition and back to morality, only it is Hitchens's morality (actually the Enlightenment as mentioned in “God is Not Great”), and thus Hitchens wants to be god. The laughter from the atheist crowd was response enough.

After the debate, we joined the huge line that formed to speak to Hitchens, books to be signed clutched in hand. Turek also had a table with a few people around it, where he tried to defend his claims to questioning audience members. Why most of the theists in the audience did not stick around, I'm not sure. At one point during this, he abused Occam's Razor and then went on to say that the multiverse hypothesis calls for multiple creators, and so nothing good was going on there. I finally got up to Hitchens's table where we chatted for a bit about how he should visit UVa since; after all, he quite admires Thomas Jefferson. I complimented him on his speaking style and expressed my wish that more scientists could speak like that to refute the misuse of science by people like Turek. He agreed, and was of course just as tired of hearing the same old rubbish. Overall, he was charming and intelligent and very laid back. Hopefully, we can get him to come to UVa and spend more time discussing!

So who won the debate? It's hard to pick a clear winner when neither side could accept the other's starting premises. It's crystal clear which side I favor, but I hope that Hitchens's words have planted a seed of doubt in someone's mind. After all, he is on a heroic mission, and he doesn't need a god to send him on his way.

Links of interest:

Christopher Hitchens
Frank Turek
“God is Not Great”
“I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist”
United Secular Alliance at VCU
Wikipedia on the Big Bang
Wikipedia on Natural Selection
John Cleese Podcast
“Science of Good and Evil” by Michael Shermer
“1984” by George Orwell
Neil deGrasse Tyson on God's retreat from cosmology (Here) and (Here)
Wikipedia on Godwin's Law
Wikipedia on Occam's Razor