SHADIA B. DRURY: Is Religion Like Sex?

CELEBRATING REASON AND HUMANITY December 2010/January 2011 Vol. 31 No.1

Science and Religion: The End of a Beautiful Relationship? RONALD N. GIERE MATT FLAMM JOHN SHOOK

RONALD A. LINDSAY on secular humanism’s scope and limits

80% 1.5 BWR PD Tom Flynn D/J 09 Katrina Voss Introductory Price $4.95 U.S. / $4.95 Can. 01 Edd Doerr Priscilla Sakezles

Stephen Uhl Published by the Council 7725274 74957 for Secular Humanism We are committed to the application of reason and sci- We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence. ence to the understanding of the universe and to the solving We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be of human problems. allowed to fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, preferences, to exercise reproductive freedom, to have to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, access to comprehensive and informed health care, and to look outside nature for salvation. and to die with dignity.

We believe that scientific discovery and technology We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, can contribute to the betterment of human life. integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that normative standards that we discover together. Moral prin- democracy is the best guarantee of protecting human rights ciples are from authoritarian elites and repressive majorities. tested by their consequences. We are committed to the principle of the We are deeply concerned with the moral education separation of church and state. of our children. We want to nourish reason and compassion. We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise We are engaged by the arts no less than by the sciences. as a means of resolving differences and achieving mutual understanding. We are citizens of the universe and are excited by discoveries still to be made in the cosmos. We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and with eliminating discrimination We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and intolerance. and we are open to novel ideas and seek new departures in our thinking. We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the disabled so that they will be able to help themselves. We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence and as a We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based source of rich personal­ significance and genuine satisfac- on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual tion orientation, or ethnicity and strive to work together for in the service to others. the common good of humanity. We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather We want to protect and enhance Earth, to preserve than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead it for future generations, and to avoid inflicting needless of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the suffering on other species. place We believe in enjoying life here and now and in of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, developing our creative talents to their fullest. beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality. *by Paul Kurtz

.95 For a parchment copy of this page, suitable for framing, please send $4 to FREE INQUIRY, P.O. Box 664, Amherst, New York 14226-0664 December 2010/January 2011 Vol. 31 No. 1

18 Science and Religion: The End of a Beautiful Relationship? John R. Shook

20 Can the Brain Decide Whether God Exists? John R. Shook

23 Strong Believers Beware Matthew Caleb Flamm CELEBRATING REASON AND HUMANITY 27 Scientists and Religious Faith Ronald N. Giere

32 The Unmaking of Wisdom: Part 1 How We Compromised Reason’s Capacity to Transform the Human Condition Andy Norman

39 Why I Am Not a Luddite Kristi DeMeester

EDITORIAL 14 Atheists Are Generous—They Just 4 Secular Humanism: Don’t Give to Charity Its Scope and Its Limits Tom Rees 55 Humanism at Large Ronald A. Lindsay Jesus Points 15 Media Stereotypes Julia Loreth LEADING QUESTIONS and the Invisible Latino ‘Nones’ 7 Glenn Beck: Icon of Irrationality Juhem Navarro-Rivera 56 Thinking Cosmically A conversation with Alexander Zaitchik Keep Your Eyes on the Stars DEPARTMENTS Lawrence Rifkin LETTERS 47 Church-State Update Education “Reform” REVIEWS 11 Edd Doerr 58 C Street:The Fundamentalist Threat to American Democracy NEWS BEAT 48 Great Minds by Jeff Sharlet­ 16 Dawkins, Harris, Krauss, and Many An Epicurean Alternative to Reviewed by Edmund D. Cohen Others Highlight Council for Secular Religion Humanism Conference Priscilla Sakezles 62 The Armageddon Factor: The Rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada 50 Living Without Religion by Marci McDonald OP-EDS Why Most People Believe Reviewed by George Williamson 8 Speaking of Inconvenient Truths ... in the Supernatural Tom Flynn Stephen Uhl 64 Christmas—Philosophy for Everyone: Better Than a 9 Revisiting Natural Rights 51 Religion in History Lump of Coal Atheists, Anti-atheists, Tibor R. Machan Edited by Scott C. Lowe and Nazis—Once Again Reviewed by Tom Flynn 12 Is Religion Like Sex? P. W. Sperlich Shadia B. Drury POETRY 53 Faith and Reason 66 Doubt I, II, and III “I’m Not Religious, but I Am 13 Eat Tofu, Do Science by Rick Ferris Spiritual” Katrina Voss Richard Schoenig Ronald A. Lindsay Editorial FI Editorial Staff

Editor Thomas W. Flynn Associate Editors D.J. Grothe John R. Shook Managing Editor Andrea Szalanski Columnists Arthur Caplan, Richard Dawkins, Edd Doerr, Shadia B. Drury, Nat Hentoff, Secular Humanism: Christopher Hitchens, Wendy Kaminer, Tibor R. Machan, Tom Rees, Its Scope and Its Limits Katrina Voss Senior Editors Bill Cooke, Richard Dawkins, Edd Doerr, James A. Haught, Jim Herrick, Gerald A. Larue, Ronald A. Lindsay, Taslima Nasrin ecular humanism is a comprehen- humanism does not point in any particular Contributing Editors Jo Ann Boydston, Roy P. sive, nonreligious lifestance. It is com- direction. Instead, it opens up our horizons Fairfield, Charles Faulkner, Levi Fragell, Adolf Sprehensive because it touches every so we can assume responsibility for shaping Grünbaum, Marvin Kohl, aspect of life, including issues of value, our lives through our personal choices. Thelma Lavine, Lee Nisbet, meaning, and identity. J.J.C. Smart, Thomas Szasz The Scope of Secular Humanism Ethics Editor Elliot D. Cohen Presumably, the two foregoing state- Literary Editor David Park Musella ments provide an accurate description of There are values shared by secular human- Assistant Editors Julia Lavarnway secular humanism because they appear ists. Anyone familiar with Free Inquiry Gretchen McCormack on the website of the Council for Secular knows what they are, and if you need to Permissions Editor Julia Lavarnway Humanism. But permit me to register a refresh your recollection, the Affirmations Art Director Christopher S. Fix dissent from these statements. Or, perhaps of Humanism are printed on the inside Production Paul E. Loynes Sr. better said, let me explain how I think the cover of this issue. There are a number Council for Secular Humanism “comprehensive” nature of secular human­ - of different values and principles set forth ism should be interpreted. It should not be in the Affirmations, but I believe the core Chair Richard K. Schroeder interpreted as implying that secular human- values can be summarized as equality, free- Board of Directors Kendrick Frazier, David ism significantly and directly influences all dom, responsibility, and secularism. Henehan, Dan Kelleher, Angie McQuaig, the choices we make throughout our lives. Equality. Secular humanists are com- Edward Tabash, For example, we have no list of required mitted to treating all with dignity and Leonard Tramiel garments or taboo foods. Furthermore,­ respect and to removing discriminatory Chief Executive Officer Ronald A. Lindsay based on my experience, secular human- barriers to equal opportunity. Democracy Executive Director Thomas W. Flynn is the only form of government morally Director, Campus and ists have widely varying preferences about Community Programs (CFI) Lauren Becker forms of entertainment, style of housing, acceptable to them, in part because it is Director, Secular Organizations and mode of transportation. With respect the only form of government in which all for Sobriety Jim Christopher citizens have equal political standing (at Director, African Americans to many, if not most, questions, secular for Humanism Debbie Goddard least in theory). Vice President of Planning and Development (CFI) Sherry Rook Freedom. Fundamental Director of Libraries (CFI) Timothy Binga “With respect to many, if not most, freedoms,­ such as freedom of Database Manager (CFI) Jacalyn Mohr questions, secular humanism does speech, freedom of inquiry, free- Staff Pat Beauchamp, Cheryl dom of religion, and reproduc- Catania, Eric Chinchón, not point in any particular direction. Roe Giambrone, Leah tive freedom are central to the Gordon, Lisa Nolan, Instead, it opens up our horizons secular humanist outlook. These Paul Paulin, Dan Riley, so we can assume responsibility freedoms are cherished and Anthony Santa Lucia, John Sullivan, for shaping our lives through championed not only for their Christopher Szczygiel, our personal choices.” utilitarian value but also because­ Vance Vigrass they provide individuals with the

autonomy to decide the course Executive Director Emeritus Jean Millholland of their own lives. Responsibility. Secular

4 Free Inquiry December 2010 / January 2011 secularhumanism.org humanists hold that individuals have the eager to fund religious initiatives with our responsibility to make use of the free- tax dollars. In addition, Republicans have doms they enjoy. In particular, they should allied themselves with religious Right posi- employ critical reasoning in making import- tions on abortion, stem cell research, and FREE INQUIRY (ISSN 0272-0701) is published bimonthly by ant decisions. They should not blindly fol- gay rights. Thus, all too many Republicans­ the Council for Secular Humanism, a nonprofit educational low the dictates of any religion or ideology, have adopted positions contrary to secu- corporation, P.O. Box 664, Amherst, NY 14226-0664. Phone (716) 636-7571. Fax (716) 636-1733. Copyright ©2010 by nor should they defer to the authority of a lar-humanist understandings of secularism the Council for Secular Humanism. All rights reserved. No part priest, rabbi, imam, or secular guru. and fundamental freedoms. of this periodical may be reproduced without permission of the publisher. Periodicals postage paid at Buffalo, N.Y., and Secularism. We are thoroughgoing But rejection of Republican or conser- at additional mailing offices. National distribution by Disticor. secularists. Our advocacy of the separa- vative positions on issues such as abortion FREE INQUIRY is indexed in Philosophers’ Index. Printed in the United States. Postmaster: Send address changes to FREE tion of church and state is not limited to and stem cell research should not imply INQUIRY, P.O. Box 664, Amherst, NY 14226-0664. Opinions demanding that there be no overt alliance that secular humanist principles commit expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of the editors or publisher. No one speaks on behalf of the Council for Secular between the government and religious one to specific stands on all the various for- Humanism unless expressly stated. bodies. In matters of public policy, we eign-policy or economic issues that divide TO SUBSCRIBE OR RENEW maintain that religious doctrine should Americans. Is there a secular humanist Call TOLL-FREE 800-458-1366 (have credit card handy). have no role to play. Discourse about position on the Iran conflict? The war in Fax credit-card order to 716-636-1733. public policy should be framed entirely in Afghanistan? We are in favor of democracy Internet: www.secularhumanism.org. secular terms, and decisions about public and equal rights for women and religious Mail: FREE INQUIRY, P.O. Box 664, Amherst, NY 14226-0664. Subscription rates: $35.00 for one year, $58.00 for two years, policy should be based entirely on secular minorities, but it is debatable whether $84.00 for three years. Foreign orders add $10 per year for considerations. democracy and egalitarian principles can surface mail. Foreign orders send U.S. funds drawn on a U.S. bank; American Express, Discover, MasterCard, or Visa are These core values—equality, freedom, or should be exported and imposed at preferred. responsibility, and secularism—provide a gunpoint. Similarly, we are in favor of pro- Single issues: $5.95 each. Shipping is by surface mail in U.S. (included). Canadian and foreign orders include $1.56 for 1–3 meaty agenda for secular issues and $3.00 for 4–6 issues. By air mail, $3.00 for 1–3 humanists. Promoting these val- issues and $7.20 for 4–6 issues. ues and working to have these CHANGE OF ADDRESS values applied in our society “Secular humanists hold that Mail changes to FREE INQUIRY, ATTN: Change of Address, P.O. and our institutions is more than Box 664, Amherst, NY 14226-0664. individuals have the responsibility to Call Customer Service: 716-636-7571, ext. 302. enough to occupy our time and make use of the freedoms they enjoy. E-mail: [email protected]. energy. Nonetheless,­ some seek In particular, they should employ critical BACK ISSUES a broader agenda. In particu- Back issues through Vol. 23, No. 3 are $6.95 each. Back issues lar, there are some who believe reasoning in making important decisions.” Vol. 23, No. 4 and later are $5.95 each. 20% discount on orders of 10 or more. Call 800-458-1366 to order or to ask for that secular humanism implies a a complete listing of back issues. commitment to a wide range of REPRINTS/PERMISSIONS specific political, economic, and To request permission to use any part of FREE INQUIRY, write to cultural positions. I disagree. FREE INQUIRY, ATTN: Julia Lavarnway, Permissions Editor, P.O. tecting the United States against terrorist Box 664, Amherst, NY 14226-0664. Politics and Economics attacks, but whether American interven- WHERE TO BUY FREE INQUIRY FREE INQUIRY is available from selected book and magazine Everyone knows that the Council for tion either in Iraq or Afghanistan will have sellers nationwide. Secular Humanism and the Center for the consequence of diminishing the threat ARTICLE SUBMISSIONS Inquiry are nonpartisan, consistent with of terrorism is unclear. In sum, it seems Complete submission guidelines can be found on the web at their status as nonprofit organizations. to me, the wisdom of the war in Iraq or www.secularhumanism.org/fi/details.html. They cannot and do not endorse candi- Afghanistan is a subject on which reason- Requests for mailed guidelines and article submissions should be addressed to: Article Submissions, ATTN: Tom Flynn, FREE dates. However, there is a perception that, able secular humanists can differ. INQUIRY, P.O. Box 664, Amherst, NY 14226-0664. in terms of their beliefs, secular humanists Likewise, on economic issues, there is LETTERS TO THE EDITOR in the United States are a faction of the ample room for disagreement among secu- Send submissions to Letters Editor, FREE INQUIRY, P.O. Box left wing of the Democratic Party—and lar humanists about regulation of financial 664, Amherst, NY 14226-0664. this perception is sometimes fostered by institutions, stimulation of job growth, tax For letters intended for publication, please include name, address (including city and state), and daytime telephone number (for secular humanists themselves. policy, Social Security reform, and so forth. verification purposes only). Letters should be 300 words or fewer Make no mistake: there is at least Occasionally, some humanists will claim and pertain to previous FREE INQUIRY articles. one good reason that secular humanists that secular humanism does have some- in the United States tend Democratic. thing significant to say about controversial The mission of the Council for Secular Humanism is to advocate and defend a nonreligious lifestance rooted in science, natural- Regret­ta­bly, at least since the 1980s, the economic issues. Typically, what follows istic philosophy, and humanist ethics and to serve and support Re­publican Party has cozied up to religion, this pronouncement is one of two things: adherents of that lifestance. often the more conservative brand of reli- either a specific position is set forth that gion. Most Republicans not only want to attracts nowhere near universal support insert more religion into our lives, they are among humanists, or, in lieu of a specific

secularhumanism.org December 2010 / January 2011 Free Inquiry 5 position, a bromide is offered. Something defined, and a clear, rationally defensible of secular humanist conferences,­ meetings, like, “The market should not be left unreg- connection must be made between the and gatherings over the last thirty years, it ulated.” That’s not especially helpful, is it? proposed policy and the stated objective. seems to me we may be a bit top-heavy Who does not believe that some regulation These may seem like obvious points, but in the area of graduate degrees. Don’t get of the market is necessary (other than they are frequently overlooked. To take just me wrong. I think it’s wonderful that so the most fervent disciples of Ayn Rand)? one example, consider the debate over the many learned and accomplished individu- Disputes are not about regulation in the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. One justification als are attracted to secular humanism and abstract but about the specific constraints for this policy has been that allowing gays are willing to use their skills to further our that should be placed on the market and and lesbians to serve openly in the military cause. But erudition can be perceived as the appropriate role of government. would adversely affect military effectiveness. condescension when a humanist leader Clearly, because of secular humanists’ But upon examination, one finds virtually no begins lecturing others about what they commitments to civil equality and the dig- evidence to support this speculation. To the should read, watch, or listen to or how nity of the individual, some of the con- contrary, dismissal of trained, experienced they should spend their free time gener- straints imposed on markets are supported individuals from the armed­ forces solely on ally. Secular humanism is supposed to be the ground of their sexual a “movement.” A movement limited to a orientation has deprived­ the subset of those who subscribe to the New military of needed skills at a York Times and enjoy reading Aristotle does time when there is an overall not strike me as a broad-based movement “. . . Rejection of Republican or shortage of qualified person- or one with much potential for growth. nel. Insistence on evidential As indicated above, we do maintain conservative positions on issues such support and critical reason- that individuals have certain responsibil- as abortion and stem cell research should ing—over “gut” instincts and ities. For example, in a well-functioning not imply that secular humanist principles propositions taken on faith— democracy, voters should be informed commit one to specific stands on all the can be decisive. voters, so people should take the time to become educated about the critical issues various foreign-policy or economic Culture before heading to the polls. But after peo- issues that divide Americans.” Some secular humanists have ple have discharged their responsibilities, also suggested that their they should have the discretion to decide lifestance entails a commit- what other activities to pursue. They can ment to particular cultural spend their Sunday afternoon engaging values. Reference has been in car repair, casino gambling, cooking, or made to the need for indi- cogitation—or as a couch potato. None of by the vast majority of secular humanists. viduals to pursue excellence (“The Pursuit these activities is more intrinsically human- We do not think people should go without of Excellence,”­ FI, December 2005/January istic than another. adequate nutrition or housing, even if this 2006). This is sometimes coupled with the Secular humanism does bear on the means they must receive assistance from assertion that we need to refine our tastes; key aspects of one’s life. It shapes our the government—but this is hardly a con- Mozart is inherently preferable to Mega­deth moral values. It also influences our sense of troversial position. There are many other and should be recognized as such, some meaning and identity. It does so, however, issues on which secular humanists can and humanists insist. not by dictating what we should think or do disagree with each other. If encouraging the pursuit of excel- what we should do but by providing the One should not infer from the forego- lence simply means encouraging individu- means for us to decide for ourselves what ing that secular humanists have nothing to als to make use of their talents and capa- we find fulfilling and to create our own bilities, that’s fine. If it means that secular identity. contribute to debates over foreign policy humanists have an obligation to educate or economic matters or other controversial others on appropriate tastes, then I would policy issues. In most cases, however, the vigorously object to this misunderstanding principal contribution of secular humanists of the scope of secular humanism. Secular to policy debates is not advocacy of a humanism does not em­power its adher- specific substantive position but rather the ents to act as some sort of culture police, approach we bring and the methodology dictating standards to the less enlightened. we urge all to adopt. Policy debates should It does not come with a required reading not be governed by ideological doctrine list or a mandatory course in or religious dogma. Empirical data, where Ronald A. Lindsay, president and CEO of the Center for Inquiry, art appreciation. available, should be offered in support of admits to having two graduate degrees and to liking Mozart— I don’t know about you, positions and carefully examined. Objec­ and Social Distortion. but having been to a number tives of proposed policies must be carefully

6 Free Inquiry December 2010 / January 2011 secularhumanism.org Leading Questions

Glenn Beck: Icon of Irrationality a conversation with Alexander Zaitchik

­Investigative journalist Alexander Zaitchik is the author of the new book, Common Nonsense: Glenn Beck and the Triumph of Ignorance (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2010). A freelance journalist living in Brooklyn, New York, Zaitchik has contributed to Salon.com, The Nation, Wired, and many other distinguished publications. Com­mon Nonsense: Glenn Beck and the Tri­umph of Ignorance is his first book. This interview has been condensed from one that appeared on the Center for Inquiry’s podcast, Point of Inquiry (POI), and was conducted by POI host and sci- ence journalist Chris Mooney. To hear the Photo by Joeseph Gamble Wiley interview in its entirety, please visit www. confirm that. Beck pretty much pointofinquiry.org. —Eds. fell out of politics and religion as a young adult, and he didn’t Chris Mooney: Glenn Beck is a blight on return to it until he gave up “In terms of influence on the conser- our national discourse and an icon of irra- alcohol and drugs in the mid- tionality. Is he as big as Rush Limbaugh, or 1990s. When he was living in vative mind, I think that Glenn Beck is will he be? New Haven, Connecticut,­ with either a primary or an ascendant leader.” Zaitchik: Beck’s radio audience is not his second wife, they visited as big as Limbaugh’s, although his total a bunch of churches in the media imprint is larger because unlike area and for some reason decid- Limbaugh, Beck has very carefully con- ed that the Mormon church side more central to his identity than structed an empire with many platforms offered the most likely interpretation of the his ideological side? that he’s constantly expanding—every- world, something that made sense to them Zaitchik: I think it’s a rare case of the thing from radio to television to publishing and resonated with them. two dovetailing perfectly. The constant to, increasingly, stage. His influence is After his conversion to Mormonism throughout his life is his desire for wealth probably bigger than Limbaugh’s at this in the late 1990s, Beck gravitated toward and fame. The politics has come later, point, just in terms of how much time is its hard-Right strain. It was his associa- but they fit together perfectly. The fact spent talking about the guy and his nutty tion with these right-wing Mormons that that Beck has been able to become wildly ideas. How that translates into political shaped his early politics and talk-radio famous and wealthy beyond his wildest impact is another and much more compli- career. That’s when he started to become dreams—his company made more than cated question. In terms of influence on conspiratorial; that’s when he started to $30 million last year—by selling very angry the conservative mind, I think that Glenn mix anti-Islamic rants with classic anti-com- right-wing politics is a dream come true Beck is either a primary or an ascendant munist thinking from the McCarthy days. for him. leader. The Glenn Beck we know today is in big Mooney: How much feedback have Mooney: How does Beck’s religious part a result of his needing an instant worl- you gotten on your book from Beck or background contribute to understanding dview that was provided by these very, people working with him? this phenomenon that now goes by the very right-wing extreme Mormons whom Zaitchik: They are way too smart to name of Glenn Beck Nation? he probably would not have encountered mention it. Zaitchik: He grew up in a very con- had he not converted to Mormonism. Mooney: Let’s talk about Beck’s con- servative Catholic household, although he Mooney: You write that he’s simul- spiracy theories, such as his idea that wasn’t very religious. His parents were like- taneously an ideologue and a stunningly (Continued on page 42) ly Birchers, although I haven’t been able to good businessman. Is Beck’s business

secularhumanism.org December 2010 / January 2011 Free Inquiry 7 Tom Flynn OP-ED

Speaking of Inconvenient Truths . . .

t’s probably old news by now, but devices, taking hostages and threatening to savor lives worth living. as I write this, the one-man assault on their lives—are inexcusable. If this violent Today’s eco-predicament has many IDiscovery Channel’s Maryland headquarters and antisocial behavior casts further disre- aspects, but scratch any of them deeply that ended in the killing by police of hos- pute on the deep-ecology movement and enough and you’ll find the population crisis tage-taker James Lee is literally yesterday’s its “People should all die off and give the underneath. Name an environmental dilem­ - news. It is a story rich in inconvenient truths, rest of the biosphere a chance” agenda, ma that’s human-driven—climate change, starting with the uncomfortable fact that Lee that would strike me as only just. freshwater depletion, nitrate accumulation, was apparently a Friend, or local member, But . . . habitat loss, take your pick—there isn’t one of the Center for Inquiry in Washington,­ There are other inconvenient truths that won’t get worse if human numbers D.C. Here’s another: media accounts say woven into this tragic story. Beneath the continue to rise. There isn’t one whose toll Lee was inspired to ramp up his deep-ecol- madness, beneath the terrorism, beneath would not be lessened if human numbers ogy radicalism after viewing, yes, Al Gore’s the save-the-planet-kill-yourself apocalyptic, decline. Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth, James Lee’s cautionary tale should remind­ If James Lee’s story disgraces the after which he decided that he wasn’t doing us of those truths, however unintentionally. deep-ecology movement, it’s vital that enough for the planet. the discredit not extend to tarnish more Lee had protested against the Dis­ Inconvenient Truth Number One responsible, positive green commitments, covery Channel (and its more than one I don’t accept that humanity is a cancer on most especially the population-control hundred sister cable networks, including the planet—as a secular humanist, I attach movement. TLC) for airing shows that failed to sup- a pretty high value to human beings—but port a strong environmental agenda. In a there’s little room to deny that there are way Inconvenient Truth Number Two too many of us and I’m old enough to remember where I was that we consume far when President John F. Kennedy was shot. too wantonly. The way I’m also old enough to remember when “If we don’t find ways for each individual to most denizens of the viewers could learn from The Learning exist more gently—and to find our way toward developed world live Channel (now TLC), gain knowledge of smaller human populations in the future—then today is unsustainable. cooking from Food Network, discover stuff If we don’t find ways on Discovery Channel, and encounter events neither we nor the ecosystems we depend on for each individual to that actually unfolded in the past on The stand much of a chance.” exist more gently— History Channel (now simply History, denot- and to achieve smaller ing a concept with which many of its cur- human populations in rent programs are unacquainted). Award the future—then nei- yourself bonus points if you also remember 1,149-word online manifesto, Lee embraced ther we nor the ecosystems we depend on when Arts and Entertainment (now A&E) a radically antihuman environmental plat- stand much of a chance. actually ran entertaining programs about form steeped in the logic and rhetoric of A deep ecologist would look at this the arts. the deep-ecology movement, which views fearsome state of affairs and say “I hope Standout scripted dramas aside, basic Homo sapiens as a cancerous scourge on we damned piggy humans get what we cable’s “narrowcasting” networks have the ecosystem. “Civilization must be exposed­ have coming.” An environmentally respon­ - spent the last decade or so racing one for the filth it is,” Lee’s manifesto declared. sible secular humanist says, “If we don’t another toward the bottom. (Perhaps it “Humans are the most destructive, filthy, reduce our footprint—and our numbers— took their minds off the inevitability of pollutive creatures around and are wrecking in a humane and orderly way, nature will being acquired by either Discovery or its what’s left of the planet with their false mor- find an inhumane and disorderly way to archrival A&E Television Networks.) And als and breeding culture.” do it for us.” Therein lies the difference a dismaying amount of this programming Of course, Lee’s actions of September between antihuman zealotry and a com- has endorsed a mindlessly natalist agenda. 1—barging into Discovery Channel head- passionate prudence that challenges us all (Continued on page 44) quarters with a gun and alleged explosive to change if we desire future generations

8 Free Inquiry December 2010 / January 2011 secularhumanism.org Tibor R. Machan OP-ED Revisiting Natural Rights

n “Sen v. Bauer: On What Do Rights the very idea of “the nature of X” falling into found since ancient times. This means we Stand?” (FI, June/July 2010), I examined disrepute at the hands of skeptics like David have the capacity to be rational, to reason Ithe basis of so-called natural rights under Hume, who disputed that things had a firm, carefully about the world. It does not mean various forms of political economy. Reader stable nature. This is still a very open issue that we do so all the time or that all of us Stephen E. Silver responded with a letter in in philosophy, so it is still widely argued that choose to do so. which he commented, in part: human nature exists and that certain rights The idea of natural rights is pretty . . . Human rights do not stand on any- may be derived from it. (Though the idea is well grounded—I wrote about it in my thing. These rights, when first promul- widely disputed, it could well be right, which Indi­viduals and Their Rights (1989)—and gated several hundred years ago, were is what really matters.) the existence of disagreement does not called “natural rights” or the “Rights of Man.” They were believed to be As to whether there are—or have undermine it. Thousands of racists disagree God-given; if there was no God, then been—many different conceptions about the moral equality of blacks and there was no basis for these rights. . . . of human nature across the globe and whites without affecting the truth about Perhaps we should treat others as if they had human rights, and we should throughout history, that’s irrelevant. There that issue in any way. ourselves be treated as if we had human are many different conceptions of jus- As a side issue, Silver’s case against nat- rights, but these rights do not really tice, fairness, equality, virtue, vice, and ural rights is exactly the same as that exist. . . . We have put them to good use, but we should admit that they are the like, but that simply reflects the fact presented by the philosopher Kai Nielsen simply a figment of society’s imagina- that people don’t see eye to eye. It does in his 1965 paper “Skepticism and Human tion. Indeed, they may represent our not imply for a moment that no human Rights” in The Monist. The debate goes on, best aspirations. nature can be identified, only that people but that doesn’t mean there is no truth This letter raises interesting issues and argue about the matter as they do about about the matter to be sought. Today, it is merits a response. Let me start with Silver‘s most other serious human first point, namely, that human rights used concerns. In my view, which to be dubbed “natural rights” and were is by no means idiosyncratic, “Human beings may have been regarded as such thought to be God-given. As the human nature exists. It con- term natural clearly suggests, these rights sists of those aspects of what by some natural-rights theorists as were also believed—for­ example, by John human beings share, by vir- created by God, but their basic Locke—to be based on an understanding tue of which we are classified rights were nonetheless held to be of human nature. Human beings may have as human beings rather than, been regarded by some natural-rights theo- say, bears or zebras (which derivable from their nature as free rists as created by God, but their basic rights also have a nature). and independent moral agents.” were nonetheless held to be derivable from Silver also questions the their nature as free and independent moral existence of natural rights on agents. That is how Locke saw it, right or the grounds that “these so-called inalien- the president’s favorite attorney, Cass wrong. So what matters here is whether able rights may be abrogated or with- Sunstein, who voices skepticism about natu- human beings are a class of living entities in drawn.” The fact that a principle can be ral rights. Tomorrow it will be someone else. the world and whether they have attributes violated doesn’t disprove its existence. That’s why, for those of us who see some- that imply that they have certain rights once Consider that women have the right to sex- thing essential in the idea of natural rights, they find themselves in human communi- ual liberty, yet rapists violate this principle eternal vigilance is needed. ties. Locke and the American Founders held all too often. Moral and political principles that they do. God had nothing much to do are of that sort. with this part of the theory. Another point on which I believe Silver Next, the reason for the switch from is mistaken is the defining Tibor R. Machan holds the R. C. Hoiles Chair at Chapman the terminology of natural rights to the capacity of human beings to University­ and is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution of terminology of human rights was not due to reason. We are rational ani- Stanford University, both in California. theological considerations but rather due­ to mals, as most thinkers have

secularhumanism.org December 2010 / January 2011 Free Inquiry 9 “It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry.” – Thomas Paine. You are invited to join the Center for Inquiry to Act, Combat, and Promote…

Since 1976, three remarkable organizations have been in the forefront of efforts to promote and defend critical thinking and freedom of inquiry. The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (founded in 1976), the Council for Secular Humanism (1980), and the Center for Inquiry For thirty years, the Council for Secular Humanism has advocated for a nontheistic worldview (1991) have advocated, based on reason, education, and compassion in place of fear or unquestioning religious belief. championed, and, when necessary, defended the freedom to inquire … while Your Help Is a Necessity! ACT, COMBAT, and PROMOTE demonstrating how the fruits We are currently focused on three of objective inquiry can be Each year, magazine goals central to our core objectives: used to understand reality, ­subscriptions fund a smaller refute false beliefs, and percentage of this work, Act to end the stigma achieve results that benefit even as the need for activism attached to being humanity. increases and the population nonreligious. we serve grows. In many ways, our organi- Combat religion’s zations have been ahead of More than ever, CFI and its privileges and its influence their time. Now, they are on public policy. affiliates depend on the truly 3 For Tomorrow. generosity of our supporters Through education, advocacy, Promote science-based both to fund daily operations skepticism and critical thinking. publishing, legal activism, and to build capital and its network of regional for the future. Make your most generous gift branches, CFI and its affiliate today. . . or request information organizations continue to ­ on planned giving or a bequest. provide support for everyone Your support today can who seeks a better life—in protect tomorrow for us all. For more information, return the attached card this life—for all. Your generous gift can or contact us at: perpetuate our work toward Center for Inquiry Development Office the kind of world you—and P.O. Box 741 your grandchildren—can feel Amherst, NY 14226 proud to live in. 1-800-818-7071 [email protected] website: www.centerforinquiry.net Letters

made any progress in their country, but it’s to lobby African lawmakers and politi- because of colonialism. cians, fan the flames of homophobia, and Germany went from a country of rubble frustrate efforts to repeal such obnoxious to the most prosperous society in Europe legislation. within ten years after World War II. Yes, they had the Marshall Plan, but there has been a lot of money and aid pumped into African Absurdism and Humanism countries as well. I don’t want to attempt to explain the difference, but I don’t believe Re “Absurdism Is a Type of Humanism” by that colonialism can be used as an excuse Stephen J. Gallagher: besides Albert Camus, after such a long time. There are no sources at least one other twentieth-century philos­ or studies mentioned, nothing that supports opher who intimately experienced the hor- the allegation that “Africans kill homosexuals rors of World War II managed to describe because of the legacy of colonialism,” just exactly what humans are for: Viktor Frankl. a sentence in which Western societies are Although­ he didn’t (like Nietzsche) have the once again blamed for the mess in Africa, nerve to kill God (he just put him in suspend- and we are supposed to accept it. Out of ed animation), Frankl deserves mention as guilt? I think it’s time to stop finding excuses one who valiantly fought against the absur- for their situation.Whatever problems they dity of life and came up with his own recipe Ground Zero Mosque have, they are self-inflicted ones and can’t be blamed on white men who left fifty years (logotherapy), which some may find useful. In his eagerness to bash Islam, Christopher ago. Benito Franqui Hitchens (“The Mosque at Ground Zero,” FI, Patric Lagny Orange, California October/November 2010) misses the point. Los Angeles, California Meaningless ritual and incantations—if they are OK at St. Patrick’s Cathe­dral—should be Leo Igwe responds: Secular Humanists and OK at 51 Park Place, which, by the way, is well out of sight of Ground Zero. This is in I agree with Patric Lagny that the idea the Holidays of blaming colonialism for whatever goes keeping with the humanistic and philosophi- I wanted to let you know how much I en­ wrong in Africa, decades after indepen- cal principles of America’s founding. joyed your latest issue of Free Inquiry. Of dence, is quite unreasonable. Unlike the Rohan Perera, MD special interest was the article “They Say East Setauket, New York black continent, other continents that were colonized in the past have moved on. Sadly, ‘Merry Christmas’ and You Say . . .?” Author for Africa, colonialism has become a scape- James H. Dee sure nailed it when he noted Rights, Gay and Otherwise goat for its self-inflicted woes. But that how unconcerned the religious are about does not negate the fact that the structures our feelings regarding them saying “Merry After reading Leo Igwe’s “Homosexuality introduced and left behind by erstwhile col- Christmas” to us. Our feelings don’t matter in Africa” (FI, October/November 2010), onizers, which Africans have refused to dis- to them. I’ve noticed this time and again I was a bit in shock about the thrown- mantle, are having very negative effects on with religious people. I’m sure the idea of in statement, “In addition, much of the the continent’s growth and development. Saturnalia would cause them to go ballistic, intolerance . . . must be understood as Moreover, former colonialists still wield a which might be amusing to watch. legacies of foreign influence and colonial- lot of influence on the politics of their for- Donell Meadows ism, evangelical Christianity, and Islam.” mer colonies in Africa. New Bern, North Carolina While I do not necessarily disagree with his For instance, the anti-homosexual laws statements about Christianity and Islam, I currently in force in most African countries WRITE TO must question the reference to colonialism. were introduced by the colonial powers. It sounds like the usual apologetic mantra They were then adopted by African leaders I have heard since my childhood whenever at independence. Of course, this does not Send submissions to something about Africa is criticized. Yes, mean that African leaders couldn’t have Andrea Szalanski, Letters Editor, they waste foreign aid to support dictator introduced such laws—or worse legisla- FREE INQUIRY, X’s harem, but it’s because of colonialism. tion—without any colonial influence. P.O. Box 664, Amherst, NY 14226-0664. Yes, they cut each other’s heads off, but The fact is that many groups in Europe, Fax: (716) 636-1733. it’s because of the white man. Yes, in the United States, and the Middle East use E-mail: [email protected]. fifty years of independence they haven’t their money, influence, and connections

secularhumanism.org December 2010 / January 2011 Free Inquiry 11 Shadia B. Drury OP-ED Is Religion Like Sex?

ome defenders of religion have horrors of the last century were not the To counteract this effect, Lenin liberated argued that religion is like sex—efforts work of religion properly understood but atheism, but he did not intend to destroy Sto repress or eradicate it are futile, of secular regimes—Communism and religion overnight. He believed that once unrealistic, and inhuman because it’s part Fascism—whose repression of religion the world was transfigured by Communism, of human nature. Repressing religion is like backfired and transformed them into gro- religion would gradually disappear because repressing sex—it is not only impossible, tesque forms of religion comparable to the it would have no function. Religious people it’s disastrous. Like sex, religion doesn’t go perversions of repressed sexuality. Gray were thought to be suffering from “false away; it comes back with a vengeance in and Eagleton warn us that we must learn consciousness”; they needed help, not per- the most outlandish and perverted forms. the lessons of the past because liberal secution. The churches that perpetuated The totalitarian regimes of the twentieth humanism and its “proselytizing atheists” the false consciousness and supported the century are a case in point—they are per- are making the same mistake. Supposedly,­ enemies of the revolution were, of course, verted religions. Christian fundamentalism and Islamic ter- another matter. That’s the view of English political phi- ror are manifestations of the “return of the Lenin did crack down on the Russian losopher John Gray (“The Atheist Delusion,”­ repressed.” So atheists had better watch Orthodox Church because it was actively The Guardian, March 15, 2008). The same out. The more they repress religion, the supporting the czarist regime. The church view has been expressed by English liter- more it will come back to bite them. The was helping the czar’s secret service iden- ary critic Terry Eagleton. In Reason, Faith, unstated implication is that the repression tify and apprehend revolutionaries; it was and Revolution: Reflections on the God of religion may prove the undoing of the excommunicating­ those who supported the West just as the repression of revolution; it was providing material assis- sex has proved the undoing tance to the White armies against the Red “According to Gray and Eagleton . . . of the Catholic Church. armies in the civil war that followed the atheists had better watch out. It seems to me that Gray revolution of 1917. When some of the clergy The more they repress religion, and Eagleton are making resisted the confiscation of gold and silver two very different claims from their churches to feed the starving pop- the more it will come back to bite them.” that should be clearly distin- ulation during the famine of 1921, they were guished—one is factual, and executed. In other words, the organized the other is philosophical. manifestations of religion as the handmaid The factual claim is that the of the old regime were repressed; religion Debate (2009), Eagleton makes the unlikely totalitarian regimes­ of the twentieth cen- understood as private faith was never out- comparison of Chris­tianity with the cult tury (Communism­ and Nazism) repressed lawed, and religious people were never of Dionysus—the Greek god of wine, sex, religion. The philosophical claim is that this persecuted for being religious. Besides, Stalin and revelry (p. 92). Supposedly, the exile repression of religion created such a han- reversed Lenin’s policy and befriended the of Dionysus leads eventually to his return, kering for what was repressed that these churches in a cynical realization that religion accompanied by his wild and untamed dev- regimes ended up being perverse forms can serve as a potent fuel for the war effort. otees. That’s what Eagleton means by the of religion. As I will show, both claims are So, the repression of religion by Communism­ “return of the repressed.” Although Eagleton­ extremely problematic. is an exaggeration. and Gray do not explain, the idea belongs First, the factual claim that religion has Unlike the Communists, the Nazis in to early Freud. It is most clearly articulated been brutally repressed in the twentieth Germany and the Fascists in Italy knew in “Civilized Sexual Morality and Modern century is an exaggeration. Communists how to use religion to serve their ends. Nervous Illness.” Ac­cording­ to Freud, too such as Lenin and Marx were indeed hostile They went out of their way to court the much sexual repression causes neuroses. to religion because they shared Marx’s view Catholic Church, which was flattered and Gray and Eagleton apply Freud’s thesis on that religion is the “opium of the people”— delighted by their attention. When the sex to religion; they maintain that the repres- that is, it sustains the established order Nazis came to power in Germany, Hitler, sion of religion is liable to result in excess by promising the downtrodden rewards in who had been brought up Catholic by and perversity. the afterlife, thus making them docile and his mother, courted the Church actively. According to Gray and Eagleton, the resigned­ to their miserable condition. In this (Continued on page 44) “new atheists” fail to recognize that the way, religion plays an anti-revolutionary role.

12 Free Inquiry December 2010 / January 2011 secularhumanism.org Katrina Voss OP-ED

Eat Tofu, Do Science

have been a vegetarian for almost as is clearly a more reliable and immediate Now let’s consider research on animals, long as I have been an atheist. By age animal-saving pursuit than anti-research ac­ which is sometimes extremely im­portant I fourteen, I had made the conscious deci- tivism. According to some calculations, one to scientific discovery. Many humans can sion not to consume any animals, and I vegetarian “saves” anywhere from twen- thank animal research for immunizations have not eaten meat since. For the most ty-five to fifty livestock and fowl per year against polio, diphtheria, rubella, and part, I have not made a habit of flaunting and does so passively—that is, without mumps, not to mention advances in sur- my decades-long vegetarianism or harass- writing letters, picketing laboratories, or gical techniques including organ transplan- ing others about their dietary choices. This sending bomb threats. tation. And lest we forget, we bipedal pri- said, I admit to occasional incursions into Moreover, unlike opposition to animal mates aren’t the only ones benefiting from whiney pretentiousness in the company of research, vegetarianism may save more animal experiments. Other animals, such omnivores. than just animal lives—it may even pre- as pets, zoo animals, and even wild ani- But to be fair, there is something much serve the life of our planet. According to mals, have been saved thanks to antibiotics worse than a whiney, pretentious vegetar- both a 2006 United Nations ian: a whiney, pretentious, anti–animal-re- report and the not-so-politi- search activist meat-eater. And yet, such cally-correct writers of Super­ activists don’t elicit the same public ridicule. Freako­nomics, meat-eating is “For theists and nontheists alike, Deep down, the public—secular and reli- more ruinous to the atmo- meat-eating enjoys a kind of gious—think they have a good point. sphere than the emissions of traditionalist, ‘necessary-evil’ acceptance, Arguments inspired by religion have cars, SUVs, and jets com- a sort of echo effect. That is, even a sec- bined. Globally, livestock is while scientific research using animals ular society can adopt certain precepts responsible for 37 percent of seems unnatural and frivolous. . . . without “remembering” where the ideas methane (a heat-trapping gas Maybe the more humanist, came from. For theists and nontheists alike, twenty times more power- compassionate, and pro-science meat-eating enjoys a kind of traditionalist, ful than CO2) production, 64 “necessary-evil” acceptance, while scientif- percent of ammonia (which position is the other way around.” ic research using animals seems unnatural contributes to acid rain), and and frivolous. The blatantly religious person 65 percent of nitrous oxide might say something like “God intended us (a heat-trapping gas three hundred times and other treatments that research—yes, to eat meat, not to play God by doing sci- more powerful than CO2). research on animals—has provided. Crude­ly ence.” The secularist’s version has become Most important, when comparing stated, meat can be ingested and excreted, “Eating meat sustains my body, but doing meat-eating to animal research, the ethical or it can be the source of scientific advance- research is not a life necessity.” Either way, humanist should employ a cost-benefit ment. Kilocalories­ of energy or kilobytes of the axiom is the same: Using animals for analysis. Vegetarianism is personally costly information. food is OK; using them for science is not. insofar as it requires a daily commitment, Now before I make too many enemies, Let me just throw something out there: even a difficult dietary sacrifice. And to be I will offer these qualifications. Certainly, I maybe the more humanist, compassionate, clear, methods of husbandry that suppos- believe our tolerance for animal research and pro-science position is the other way edly prevent suffering—such as free-rang- should extend only to the advancement of around. ing—are frankly half-assed forms of abso- basic scientific and medical knowledge— Presumably, both the vegetarian and lution as long as other protein-rich foods not to testing cosmetics­. Further, rigorous the campaigner against animal research are are available for consumption. All told, protocols should ensure humane treatment motivated by the same force: the desire not then, almost no one today (outside of the and accountability. And finally, animal re­ to cause the suffering and death of sentient few existing hunter/gatherer communities) search should be a last resort, used only beings. In a practical sense, vegetarianism must eat meat to survive. (Continued on page 45)

secularhumanism.org December 2010 / January 2011 Free Inquiry 13 Tom Rees OP-ED

Atheists Are Generous—They Just Don’t Give to Charity

f a pollster asked how much you give to pretty lucrative, but some doctors choose (who has not been given any money). The charity, what would you say? Some pretty instead to work among the poor—effec- participants in the transaction are entirely Iexhaustive analyses from Arthur Brooks tively taking a pay cut in order to help the anonymous. You could keep the lot and no (a professor of business and government most needy. Curlin found that 35 percent one would ever know; consequently, any policy at Syracuse University) suggest that of nonreligious doctors, compared with money you do give demonstrates blind, if you’re nonreligious, the figure you’ll 28 percent of Catholic and 26 percent of unselfish generosity. Perhaps surprisingly, report to the pollster will likely be smaller, Protestant physicians, choose this calling— most people put in this situation (at least, on average, than the numbers claimed no sign here of mean-spiritedness among those people who have been raised in by the religious. Score one for religion: the nonreligious. Frank Gillum at Howard urbanized cultures, in which anonymous clearly it makes for nicer, more generous University and Kevin Masters at Syracuse transactions are more common) do in fact people. That, at least, is the message that University found something similar when leave something. Yet, when religious and Brooks would like to leave you with (for they looked at blood donations by mem- nonreligious people are compared, it turns more on Brooks, see Tom Flynn, “Are bers of the general public. Neither the reli- out that they give equal amounts in the Secularists Less Generous?” FI, August/ gion in which the person was raised (versus dictator game. Once again, there’s no sign September 2010). none), religious service attendance, nor of religious altruism at play. the importance of religion These results are not flukes. When in daily life were related assessed in objective, unprompted condi- to whether the person had tions, the religious are consistently found “The contrast between the ideals given blood in the past. to be no more generous, kind, or caring So, when you widen the than the nonreligious. Take for example the and self-perceptions of religious people scope to include­ charitable classic 1973 study by psychologist Daniel and the results of studies using other behavior other than simple Batson. He set up a situation in which stu- research strategies is so striking that cash gifts, the idea that reli- dents had to pass along an alleyway where gious people are more gen- a man lay slumped, seemingly unconscious. researchers may be tempted to suspect erous than the nonreligious A few stopped to help. But the highly reli- moral hypocrisy in religious people.” takes a hit. However, we do gious were no more likely to do so than the —researcher Vassilis Saroglou need to be cautious about less religious. In another of Batson’s stud- self-reported behavior— ies, participants were asked to volunteer answers­ can be notoriously to help raise money for a sick child. Some unreliable, especially when were told they would probably be called it comes to values that are upon; others were told they would prob- important to an individual’s ably not be. This time the religious were But hang on a moment. There’s more view of oneself. Are people telling you more likely to volunteer—but only when to generosity than handing over cash to the truth or simply what they want you to they were told that their help would proba- a charity, and there are plenty of other believe? Psy­chologists are acutely aware of bly not be required! Batson concluded that ways to help your fellow humans. How do this problem and have developed a whole religion seems to promote the need to be the nonreligious perform when it comes battery of tests designed to measure altru- seen as generous but not generosity itself. to generosity in kind, rather than in cash? ism objectively. Vassilis Saroglou, a psychologist at the There have been a few studies looking One of their favorites is the omi- Université Catholique de Louvain, put the into this, and they reveal a rather different nous-sounding “dictator game.” In it, the implications in plain terms: “The contrast picture. Take, for example, a 2007 study subjects are given a small sum of money between the ideals and self-perceptions of of doctors by Farr Curlin at the University (say, $10) and are told that they can leave religious people and the results of studies of Chicago. Private general practice can be some, all, or none for another participant (Continued on page 43)

14 Free Inquiry December 2010 / January 2011 secularhumanism.org Juhem Navarro-Rivera OP-ED

Media Stereotypes and the Invisible Latino ‘Nones’

arly in 2010, multiple news articles with previously reported­ national trends group. For this reason, featuring Latino described how some Latinos are con- about other Americans­ with no religion. This Muslims in stories makes more sense than Everting to Islam, apparently a new trend group—known as the “Nones” after the featuring atheist and agnostic Latinos, among Latinos in the United States. Because most common response to the main ARIS despite the latter being much more numer- Latinos are an overwhelmingly Christian­­ question, “What is your religion, if any?”—is ous than the former. ethnic group, an increase in Latinos iden- a combination of self-identified agnostics, Let me explain. According to ARIS tifying with Islam is by itself an interesting atheists, humanists, seculars, and “Nones.” 2008, 427,000 out of 32 million Latinos subject. It is even more interesting because ARIS 2008’s findings on the rise of the identified with non-Christian world reli- the media’s coverage of Latinos and reli- Nones in the general U.S. population were gions such as Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, or gion tells us something important about widely featured in American mainstream Scientology. Of these, just about 75,000 America’s uneasy relationship with secular- media, including a major story in promi- Latinos self-identified as Muslim. Mean­ ism and how that has led to the underre- nent newspapers such as USA Today and while, the number of self-identifying athe- porting of a bigger story—increasing num- airtime on popular news programs like ist and agnostic Latinos alone was 463,000 bers of nonreligious Latinos. ABC World News and NBC Nightly News. among 3.8 million total Latino Nones. There has been ample coverage over The same was not the case with the ARIS This means that there are six times more the years of the rise of Latino Protestants, Latino report. Latino atheists and agnostics than Latino in particular evangelical Protestants. Numer­­ Ironically, Catholic media ous articles have discussed how this group’s provided the greatest cov- growth is transforming the Latino commu- erage of the Latino report. “. . . The media’s coverage of Latino nity. But Latinos are still overwhelmingly Catholic columnists and Catholic, which makes perfect sense con- blog­gers stressed in their religion tells us something important sidering the heavy historical influence that reporting the increasing raw about America’s uneasy relationship with the Roman Catholic Church has had in the number of Latino Catholics secularism and how that has led to the national histories of those who now com- in the United States—fueled prise the Latino ethnic category. in part by immigration— and underreporting of a bigger story—increas- But media portrayals of Latinos as downplayed the huge loss- ing numbers of nonreligious Latinos.” a religious population hide the fact that es of Latinos to secularism. American Latinos are increasingly rejecting For their part, the Latino religion. In March 2010, researchers at Trin­ Protestant media remained ity College in Hartford, Connecticut, report­ - mum to the best of my ed on changes in religious identification knowledge, and mainstream Latino media Muslims, and there are more Latino atheists among U.S. Latinos as seen in the American did not devote any significant time to the and agnostics than the combined total of Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) 2008. news. The media outlets that published sto- Latinos claiming identification with all other Unfortunately, very few media outlets cov- ries about Muslim Latinos ignored the vastly non-Christian world religions. ered what may be the most important find- more significant growth in the number of Though the net growth of Latino ing of the Latino report (titled “U.S. Latino new Latino Nones. Nones was similar to the net growth of Religious Iden­tifi­cation 1990–2008: Growth, Despite being the second-largest reli- Latino Protestants (about 3 million in each Diversity & Transforma­ tion):­ that the U.S. gious group among Latinos (after Catho­lics) category over eighteen years), there have Latino population is becoming more secular. and the fastest-growing religious group been no major stories about how secular Both Latino and mainstream U.S. media within the fastest-growing ethnic group in Latinos may change the political landscape ignored the ARIS 2008 results showing the United States, Latino Nones are usually of the United States. Instead, Americans that the percentage of Latinos with no reli- ignored by both Latino and general U.S. are fed a diet of how evangelical Latinos gious identification doubled, from 6 to 12 media. The media are more interested will deal with the Republican Party and percent, in one generation. This doubling in stereotyping Latinos as a God-fearing, how they might weigh the party’s anti-im- of the Latino secular population is in line Virgin-worshipping, religiously conservative (Continued on page 46)

secularhumanism.org December 2010 / January 2011 Free Inquiry 15 NEWS BEAT

Dawkins, Harris, Krauss, and Many Others Highlight Council for Secular Humanism Conference

he Council for Secular Humanism celebrated its thirtieth anniversary at Ta sold-out gala conference at the Millennium Biltmore Hotel in downtown Los Angeles from Octo­ber 7–10. Some 370 people packed the grand hotel’s ornate meeting rooms to hear presentations by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Lawrence Krauss, Robert Wright, Eugenie Scott, Paul Kurtz, James “The Amazing” Randi, PZ Myers, Barry Lynn, Jennifer Michael Hecht, and many others. At the conference banquet on October 8, the Council bestowed the first and only Robert Craggs Prize upon biologist and best-selling author Richard Dawkins, rec- ognizing him as the individual who did through the legacy of Canadian freethinker the most to further the cause of rationalist Robert Craggs, who directed the Council to thought during the year 2009. Dr. Dawkins disburse its share of his legacy in that man- arrived moments after taping an episode of ner to recognize the work of Dr. Dawkins HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher to accept­ a and his foundation in America and the check in the amount of $45,225.09 payable United Kingdom. Dr. Dawkins then deliv- Richard Dawkins holds up the giant (in both senses of the word) to the Richard Daw­kins Founda­tion. This ered remarks on the distinction between check awarded to his foundation by the Council for Secular Humanism. Free Inquiry Editor Tom Flynn (left) and Council for extraordinary, one-time prize was funded ridicule (which he celebrates) and abuse Secular Humanism CEO Ronald A. Lindsay look on.

(which he abhors) in the criticism of religion. Also at the banquet, the Council be­ stowed its prestigious Forkosch Awards for the years 2008 and 2009. Established in 1988, the Morris D. Forkosch Award recognizes the best humanist book of the year and carries an honorarium of $1,000. The Selma V. Forkosch Award recognizes the year’s outstanding article in Free Inquiry magazine and carries an honorarium of $250. The Forkosch Award for Best Book of 2008 went to Susan Jacoby for The Age of American Unreason (Pantheon). The Forkosch Award for Best Article of 2008 went to Larry Hickman for “Citizen Par­ Attendees pack the historic Millennium Biltmore Hotel’s lavish Gold Room. ticipation: More or Less?” in the Oc­tober/

16 Free Inquiry December 2010 / January 2011 secularhumanism.org November 2008 Free Inquiry. The Forkosch Award for Best Book of 2009 went to Jerry Coyne for Why Evolu­ tion Is True (Viking Adult). The Forkosch Award for Best Article of 2009 went to Alexander Saxton for “The Great God Debate and the Future of Faith” in the December 2008/January 2009 Free Inquiry. Other conference highlights included a freewheeling debate on the proper rela-

Ronald A. Lindsay (far left) chairs an opening session on the Council for Secular Humanism’s first thirty years featuring James “The “Dr. Dawkins arrived Amazing” Randi, Paul Kurtz, former Council Executive Director Ed Buckner, and Tom Flynn. moments after taping an episode of HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher to accept­ a check in the amount of $45,225.09 payable to the Richard Dawkins­ Founda­tion.”

Jennifer Michael Hecht chairs an eagerly awaited session on science and religion featuring (left to right) Chris Mooney, PZ Myers, tionship between science and religion fea- Eugenie Scott, and Victor Stenger. turing evolution campaigner Eugenie Scott, author Chris Mooney, physicist Victor Stenger, and superstar science blogger PZ Myers. There was a critique of the Templeton Foundation by physicist and best-selling author Lawrence Krauss and a keynote dialogue between authors Sam Harris and Robert Wright. Harris (The End of Faith and The Moral Landscape) arrived under tight security, including a Los Angeles Police Department presence and private bodyguards, for what swiftly became­ a debate with Wright (The Moral Animal, The Evolution of God) on the links between Islam and terrorism.

Authors Robert Wright (left) and Sam Harris listen to audience questions following their keynote dialogue.

secularhumanism.org December 2010 / January 2011 Free Inquiry 17 Science and Religion: The End of a Beautiful Relationship?

John R. Shook

t was a great love-hate story, a truly grand narrative. Science and Science can’t resist telling the story a little differently, of course. Religion, ever entangled yet estranged, always going in opposite Sure, Religion was supportive, but there was always that patroniz- Idirections yet returning to collide again and again. Somehow they ing tone. Just because Religion was older, why did Religion’s wis- just can’t stay away from each other. They have had a long history dom always have to have the last word? What about those arbitrary going on this way, and the drama won’t end any time soon. rules against opening human cadavers and the way Religion would Like any bickering couple, each has its own version of the hush Science to silence about the age of the world? According to story. The way Religion tells it, Science got inspired by Religion Science, the relationship grew stormy in a fight over evolution and to study the laws of God’s creation. Science bravely ventured to humanity’s descent from early primates. And Psychology’s account study all those detailed plans for the material world, set down In of intelligence as entirely natural really got Religion upset over the the Beginning by God. Religion was so encouraging and support- dismissal of the soul. ive. Whenever Science would get frustrated—unable to explain As far as breakups go, you’d have to admit that it’s been pretty terrible. Religion and Science have been fighting over everything. They can’t even agree on what they are fighting about, which is a bad sign. Religion keeps trying to offer olive branches of peace, which is cute, but there are always strings attached. “Admit “Religion and Science have been fighting over that you’ve got limitations,” Religion says to Science, everything. They can’t even agree on what “so that we can have our teamwork again.” Science they are fighting about, which is a bad sign.” just gets more irritated at the way Religion demands from it an admission of ignorance about first and last things. Why can’t Science someday figure out where our universe came from and what its destiny is? And it is just ridiculous the way Religion keeps insisting that only its own verdicts on morality must carry any curvilinear motion with only simple math or becoming mystified weight. Religion thinks that the fight is about the proper terms of by the human body—the soothing voice of Religion’s reassurance compromise, so that once it is reached they can be partners again. was always there. “Don’t worry about such things, dear Science,” Science is done with compromise, really, and is trying to be com- Religion was quick to say, “because God alone could have knowl- pletely independent. edge of that.” As Science grew more confident of its explanatory Science does seem ready to strike off on its own. The hopes for powers, tracking the heavens with laws of gravity and motion reconciliation have never been so dim. Maybe revenge is too strong and combining elements to make new chemicals, Religion proud- a word, but this new business of scientifically explaining Religion ly boasted of Science’s talent. Telling anyone who would listen, seems a little vindictive. Religion never tried to explain Science, Religion lauded Science’s ability to trace the design of the Creator’s after all. And the way that Science encourages Atheism seems to hand and to explain how God made the world solely for humanity’s Religion rude and uncivil, even if they are having a breakup. For happy convenience. “What a team we are!” Religion would say, Atheism to say such terrible things about Religion . . . you know over and over again. they couldn’t all be true. As if only Religion caused persecution and

18 Free Inquiry December 2010 / January 2011 secularhumanism.org SCIENCE AND RELIGION: THE END OF A BEAUTIFUL RELATIONSHIP?

wars—you can’t distort history like that! Religion only gets defen- replace Religion is not a judgment that can be passed by Science. sive and accuses Science of shameless nihilism and amorality. All Science can account for the way that Religion operates in human that public noise, arguing where everyone can hear. It’s shocking, brains, but the fact that Religion is incorporated within nature is really. separated by a big logical gap from the correct judgment that Does Atheism’s way of defending Science’s side of the story Religion should be eliminated from culture. Making culture more help? Exaggerations abound. Like the version where atheism says intelligent is the hard work of thoughtful people using reasoned that Religion is simply ignorance, taking utterly invented tales persuasion, not militant force. As philosophers have long said, you for certain truths and barbaric tribal ways for wholesome ethics. can’t increase reasonableness using unreasonable means. The beau- Religion says that it must be more than that for it to have retained such strong allegiance even as humanity began to grow up. Even if Religion shouldn’t have the final say about reality or morality anymore, is Atheism right to insist that Religion must be quarantined and “Just because Religion was older, why did Religion’s eliminated? Would Atheism finish a war that Religion wisdom always have to have the last word? started? What about those arbitrary rules against opening The reader can turn to Matt Flamm’s article, which cautions that “strong believers” should beware human cadavers, and the way Religion would hush their own excesses, lest they become too much Science to silence about the age of the world?” like their enemy. If Atheism requires intolerance of Religion, then Atheism had better be ready to have its own motivations questioned as well, if this truly must be a fight to the finish. On the other hand, if war should be used only as a last resort, are fair compromises tiful relationship between Science and Religion may be over, but available? A compromise is not really fair if it requires a compromise humanity’s relationship with reason must remain secure. of either side’s essential principles. As Ronald Giere points out in his article on some scientists and their faiths, compromises with Science usually end up only compromising Science. A sufficiently unnatural God can be credited with all manner of miraculous acts without contradicting science, it is true. However, those scientists who admire divine interventions into nature—interventions lacking John Shook is an associate editor at Free Inquiry and senior research any reasoned basis (beyond conformity to the scientist’s own prior fellow at the Center for Inquiry. He is the author or editor of more than a faith)—only betray the very rationality at the heart of Science. dozen books and the coeditor of several philosophy journals. He writes and Science must remain true to reason and to the integrity of nature. lectures about naturalism, the philosophy of science, and the philosophy Compromises are never easy. Perhaps a third party, a helpful of the mind. His latest book is The God Debates (Wiley-Blackwell, 2010). mediator, is needed here. My own article recommends that philo- sophical adjudications must be heard, too. Whether Science should

secularhumanism.org December 2010 / January 2011 Free Inquiry 19 Can the Brain Decide Whether God Exists?

John R. Shook

cience studies nature, and our brains are part of nature. Nonbelievers can’t keep supposing that all religion is the result Brains naturally produce beliefs—lots of them. Some of those of brain malfunctioning. However, some nonbelievers want to con- Sbeliefs are about nature, and others are about God. God is struct a “neuro-atheology” that disproves God using neuroscience. unnatural, yet beliefs about God are natural. It’s a curious situation: Atheology, as I describe in my new book, The God Debates, designs why do natural brains produce beliefs about the supernatural? arguments against the existence of God. By recruiting the help of Brain scientists are working on the explanations for just such brain scientists, atheology might be strengthened. The neuro-athe- beliefs. Inspired by neuroscience, cognitive science, and psychol- ology strategy claims that natural explanations for religious belief ogy, religious believers are then jumping to further conclusions can rule out anything unnatural. Religious belief is entirely natural about God by constructing “neuro-theology.” Because the human in origin, and, therefore, adding any god is the unnatural and brain naturally produces religion, it is quite reasonable to believe unnecessary mistake. Since belief in religion is all-natural, this strat- in God, they claim. Old-fashioned theology involves complicated egy concludes, there can’t be any god for those beliefs to be about. arguments defending elaborate creeds. But a new “scientific” the- Both neuro-theology and neuro-atheology are inspired by the ology, based on brain science, could be a great shortcut to God. If same thought: if it’s natural, then it is better. Is nature always human brains normally make people have religious beliefs, then it better? This popular notion sells plenty of “natural” products in the must be that people are supposed to be religious! marketplace. Although “Natural is better” expresses some common sense, there are too many exceptions to the rule. We now live in a mostly artificial and synthetic world, surrounded by invention, artifact, and machine. We have to be skeptical toward the notion that “Artificial “Naturally, nonbelievers don’t feel that they is better.” Is polyester better than cotton? Is white bread better than brown? Is bottled water better than suffer from abnormal brains—they regard tap? Judging each choice on its own merits cannot be religious brains as abnormal.” avoided, because neither formula, “Natural is better” nor its opposite, can be trusted. Nature is not inher- ently good or bad. There is a deep flaw at the heart of both neu- ro-theology and neuro-atheology. When it comes to This neuro-theological argument for God is a variation on the God question, merely having a natural brain is not enough. All the “universal consent” argument for God. Because most people the same, our natural brains can decide whether God exists if we who have ever lived have been religious, belief in God must be use them carefully. Let’s take a skeptical look at these God debates. reasonable, or so goes that argument. Will brain scientists confirm this reasonableness as more and more about religious belief gets Naturalizing Religion explained by the natural brain processes that go on in so many Nature transcends our human judgment of good and bad—it can’t brains? Not believing in God is an abnormal deviation from proper tell us what ought to be. A moral “ought” cannot be deduced brain functioning, it may seem. Naturally, nonbelievers don’t feel from any natural “is.” Out in nature, the “Is-Ought” problem really that they suffer from abnormal brains—they regard religious brains is no problem at all. It is only a problem if we try to impose our as abnormal. Some peoples’ religious experiences and convictions values on nature. Resisting the temptation to ground preferential are generated by diseased or disrupted brains, no doubt. All the “oughts” on nature’s ways is the wiser course. Besides, nature same, brain scientists are finding explanations for why much reli- does so many things in almost infinite variety. Just because nature gious experience and belief can arise from normal brain function- is doing something, that fact cannot make it right or wrong. We ing. Religions arose during bygone eras of deep human ignorance, must take responsibility for adding our own judgment, drawing but our ancestors’ brains had basic cognitive abilities identical to our own conclusions about what should happen. When we try to our own. evaluate what nature is doing, we commit no fallacy, as long as we

20 Free Inquiry December 2010 / January 2011 secularhumanism.org SCIENCE AND RELIGION: THE END OF A BEAUTIFUL RELATIONSHIP?

are explicit about the values we are promoting. 2. Humans naturally tend to prioritize things that contribute to Neuro-theology commits the Is-Ought fallacy, and neuro-athe- satisfying their important psychological needs. ology risks committing that same fallacy as well. It is understand- 3. Hence, humans naturally tend to prioritize religious beliefs and able that some atheists would try to use naturalism to pass judg- often adjust them for consistency with other vital needs. ment on religious belief. After all, if neuroscience can account for 4. Nothing supernatural is needed to explain the psychological religious belief, then nothing supernatural is needed and religious basis of religious belief. stories about gods causing belief are irrelevant. Because people 5. Therefore, it is unreasonable for anyone to sustain religious belief naturally have religious beliefs, people should stop having religious in the supernatural. beliefs. Notice how this naturalistic argument first supports premise Wait a minute—that is a confusing claim: “Because people 3, which can explain why religion has been so prevalent across naturally have religious beliefs, people should stop having religious humanity. Premise 4 then reminds us that only naturalism is needed beliefs.” Should atheists be making this claim? We are seeing this for explaining religion in this way. Finally, the conclusion (5) points kind of challenge thrown down in popular atheist literature. And it out how it is unreasonable to believe in something, like God, that is not just heard from atheists impressed by brain science. There are is entirely irrelevant to having religious beliefs. useful explanations for religious belief also arriving from sociology, If this psychological argument against God initially strikes you as cultural anthropology, and various interdisciplinary fields. This larger jarring or confusing, then you have read it correctly. The argument enterprise of formulating naturalistic accounts of religion is proving needs some clarification. As it stands, it just doesn’t seem to get as to be highly useful for understanding why humanity has been so far as an atheist may hope. My suggestion is that this argument is religious for so long. Naturalizing religion is a powerful contribution making a dangerous logical leap from an “is” to an “ought.” That from science and commits no Is-Ought fallacy. We are here con- gap could be bridged by some extra value judgment. To bridge the cerned with atheological arguments against the existence of God, gap between 4 and 5, an extra evaluative judgment is required, which could be grounded on naturalizing religion. Once religion is along the lines of “No one should accept a supernatural explanation naturalized, should God disappear? when there is a sufficient naturalistic one.” This strategy, which can be labeled as the “naturalize religion” Neuro-theology is ready to raise a counterargument for God, strategy for atheism, has many new admirers as the cognitive and and it also requires an extra evaluative judgment to work. Here behavioral sciences produce reasonable explanations of religion. is an argument defending religious belief, which starts with nat- The science seems fairly sound. However, the “naturalize religion” uralistic premise 3 from the first argument, but it then draws the strategy risks committing an Is-Ought fallacy. It is unnecessary to opposite conclusion. take such a risk when advancing atheism. When atheists try to proceed directly from science’s knowledge of nature to a value 6. Humans naturally tend to prioritize religious beliefs and often judgment against religion, they go well beyond the long-familiar adjust them for consistency with other vital needs. skeptical strategy against religion. That skeptical strategy argues 7. It is naturally reasonable to prioritize religious beliefs and to that because science supplies adequate rational explanations, modify religion where necessary. religious appeals to divine powers are simply unnecessary errors. 8. Hence, people can be quite reasonable for having suitable reli- No one should have religious beliefs, the skeptical argument gious beliefs in the supernatural. goes, because religions demand beliefs that either directly violate 9. Therefore, it is unreasonable for anyone to demand the surren- scientific knowledge or simply fail to do any explanatory work at der of all religious belief in the supernatural. all. The “scientific skepticism” approach is a time-tested, logical This theological reply to atheism also leaves a logical gap: there is a strategy for advancing atheism. It is a long-term, slow strategy, hidden value judgment at work here that whatever is quite natural admittedly. Showing impatience, some atheists hope that scientific is also quite reasonable. explanations for religious belief can dramatically accelerate their We are left with a theological-atheological standoff. Both war against religion. But does a “naturalize religion” strategy really camps can point to scientific support for their positions, and both do the work that atheists hope? camps must be relying on tacit value judgments. Our initial ques- Is Religion Unreasonable Because It Is Natural? tion remains unanswered: Does better understanding of the brain diminish the reasonableness of religion or increase it? As we have Let us examine a specific example of this naturalizing religion strat- seen, the science itself is inadequate to determine a winner. It egy for atheism. In the following argument, a psychological expla- doesn’t matter which science—neuroscience, psychology, sociol- nation of religious belief supplies the factual premises. Its conclu- ogy, anthropology, meme theory, etc.—this stalemate extends sion makes a normative judgment that no one should be religious. across all fields’ factual theories about how beliefs form. More 1. Religious belief in the supernatural frequently satisfies some knowledge about how our brains do what they do cannot help this important psychological needs of humans. situation at all. The brain, as a natural thing, cannot determine

secularhumanism.org December 2010 / January 2011 Free Inquiry 21 whether God exists. To further see why atheists must advocate a cognitively improved culture, consider how the atheist should reply to neu- We Still Have to Use Our Brains ro-theology. To make an effective reply to this argument, the athe- Of course, human brains can judge whether God exists—but only ist needs to reject premise 7. To do this, the atheist must instead when they are used correctly. The brain, as an intelligent thing, can openly advocate for a more reasonable culture, one that does not decide whether God exists. Beliefs arise in all sorts of ways; what simply obey any common psychological need. To do this, there are matters more is the way that beliefs ought to form and get accepted. two main options for the atheist: We must watch out for a variation on the Is-Ought fallacy lurking 1. The atheist can claim that people should not want to satisfy when we consider brain processes themselves. Nonrational thinking the psychological needs that can lead to religious belief. We need to goes on in lots of “normal” brains, but “normal” thinking doesn’t artificially design and promote a nonreligious culture that produces make it right. Lots of brains can be quite wrong. adults who don’t have such psychological needs. Simple religious ideas probably arose quite naturally to our Alternatively, more thoughtful ancestors, but the complex belief-systems of reli- 2. The atheist can claim that people should satisfy the psycho- gions no longer leave belief formation to chance. Religions try to logical needs that can lead to religion, but only by using nonre- control belief formation with their characteristic appeals to imag- ligious substitutes. We need to artificially design and promote a ination, emotion, and mysticism. Those appeals work on normal secular culture that satisfies those psychological needs even better brains, explaining the prevalence of religion, but prevalence of a than religion. belief doesn’t make it right. For their part, nonbelievers try to con- Either way, the atheist is going well beyond the brain sciences trol their beliefs as well, advocating methods of sound reasoning themselves, which cannot inform us about what kind of culture from reliable evidence. But it is all about deliberate control of belief, we ought to have. It is one thing to naturalistically account for the for everyone. There is no innocently good way of “natural belief” existence of religious beliefs. It is a separate matter to judge that anymore, not for us at this advanced stage of human civilization. people should be more rational, that people should stop holding religious beliefs, and that no God exists. The replacement of religion with a secular alter- native involves advocating evaluative judgments about belief formation and cultures. That goes well beyond any science, and advocates of atheism who “The neuro-atheology strategy claims that natural do this are doing philosophy, not more science. explanations for religious belief can rule out Advocates of religion who claim that because anything unnatural. Religious belief is entirely brains produce religions then religions are naturally reasonable are similarly transcending anything that natural in origin, and, therefore, adding any science could justify. By trying to leap directly from God is the unnatural and unnecessary mistake.” what is natural to what is best, both camps could only commit the Is-Ought fallacy and remain stuck in a stalemate. What can be concluded from our examination of this debate about the brain sciences? The “scien- tific skepticism” approach remains a powerful Neither religion nor atheism is “more natural” for us. atheological strategy against religious belief. By asking people to Most of us live in sophisticated cultures now, and our cultures not just use their brains but to use them rationally, skepticism set standards about correct belief formation and exercise some explains why people should not believe in God. When atheists next control over beliefs. We must take responsibility for evaluating and ask people to replace their religions with all-natural alternatives, controlling our methods of knowledge. That was the point of the their cultural evaluations should also be openly explained and “scientific skepticism” approach to atheism. When judging whether defended. Atheists must take a principled cultural stand some- people ought to have religious beliefs, we can add our additional where. Nature has produced humans capable of many kinds of value judgment of “people ought to believe things only on suf- cultures, and science describes how humans can adhere to many ficient evidence.” If more people lived in cultures that prioritized kinds of belief systems. But which beliefs and cultures are best? No reason and science, then the persuasive opportunities for religions field of science is responsible for empirically confirming a normative would be much diminished. Advocates for atheism think that judgment like “scientific method is the best.” Neither nature nor we ought to live in cognitively improved cultures. This is already science is enough to replace religion. It’s time to fight for the kind evident in the “scientific skepticism” strategy, wherein the atheist of culture that we think is best. advocates the value judgment that people ought to believe things only on sufficient evidence.

22 Free Inquiry December 2010 / January 2011 secularhumanism.org SCIENCE AND RELIGION: THE END OF A BEAUTIFUL RELATIONSHIP?

Strong Believers Beware

Matthew Caleb Flamm

Si comprehendis, non est Deus. (If you can understand it, it is not suspects, or rather hopes, that behind the predominately religious God.) —St. Augustine American public front there lurk new possibilities of sympathy for naturalistic perspectives. t is easy these days to feel marginalized if you do not believe The new atheists are well aware that their hopes for closet or in an Abrahamic God. When among such believers who know otherwise marginalized sympathizers are up against formidable Iof or suspect my unbelief, I find myself ignoring comments and opposing public sentiments. It is true that some still worry about a innuendo. And, coward that I often am among believers who know perceived “secular menace” in American culture. But given Gallup nothing of my unbelief, I find myself maneuvering conversation numbers tallying the vast majority with theistic sensibilities and away from religious topics. Those with like sensibilities who find the more recent surge of evangelical interests, it is clear that the themselves feeling socially awkward have a recent group of very presence of secularism in this country hobbles in a sea of creationist public champions of unbelief to which they can appeal. sympathy. The spirit of the “new atheist” opposition to religion can be With this climate of creationist sympathies, the new atheists summed up in H. L. Mencken’s amusing definition of theology as express neither patience nor tolerance. Harris attacks “religious mod- the “effort to explain the unknowable by putting it into terms of eration” as a more insidious form of faith than religious fundamen- the not worth knowing.” Once the scathing rhetoric of Christopher­ talism. Religious moderation is possibly worse than fundamentalism, Hitchens and Richard Dawkins ceases to distract, the intellectu- according to Harris, because it results from making “concessions to al grandstanding of Sam Harris is forgiven, and the evolutionary modernity” yet pretending to be more liberal and tolerant. Hitchens Enlightenment narrative of Daniel C. Dennett judiciously bracketed, is surprisingly sparse in his direct treatment of contemporary cre- the remainder of reasoned argument that allies the four adduces ationist sympathies, but anecdotal flourishes suggest enough, such essentially to Mencken’s simple point: traditional religious claims as when he equates the idea of a creationist instructing your child are simply not worthy of the title “knowledge.” during his or her “lunch breaks” with child abuse. So as not to confuse the new atheists with positivists from the Like Harris, Dawkins suggests that moderates “make the world beginning of the twentieth century who attempted in their own safe” for religious fundamentalism. He further displays a bemused way to discredit religious claims as knowledge claims, our “Four and aloofly curious attitude toward contemporary religious sensibil- Horsemen” have additionally marshaled a mountain of evidential ities. He marvels at the different levels of effrontery people reveal retorts to many specific religious claims. Most interesting from a in disputes of religious as opposed to nonreligious matters. We are philosophical standpoint, they have issued a formidable challenge inclined, he observes, to take good-natured exception to others’ to believers to reconcile their convictions with the implications of taste for beets or rap music when these are not our preferences, the modern synthesis, the title science historians give to the legit- yet when someone subscribes to a different religious sensibility or imation of Darwinian evolutionism by its agreement with (among to none at all, we take high offense. As Dawkins observes, we are other scientific specializations) genetic, anthropologic, and paleon- allowed to be “far more rude” about things like politics or matters tological developments. Their atheism, then, while similar to that of aesthetics than about religion. The implication, of course, is that of positivists of previous generations in its scientistic, naturalistic in this enlightened age of understanding it is quite Victorian of us to rejection of religious claims as knowledge, is grounded in the latest pretend high offense at matters whose controversy has long since synthesis of multiple scientific areas of study, filed compendiously been demoted to the level of taste. One chooses one’s religion with under the heading of “evolutionary biology.” all the demonstrative support of an ice-cream flavor, and it is sheer The public alliance of the four representative authors under the pretense to act otherwise. banner “atheism” has been willing but also tentative (as evidenced For himself, Dennett makes inviting gestures to his creationist in Hitchens’s rejection of the revealing label “brights,” Dennett’s readers that approach sympathy, but the invitation tends to take preferred term for atheists). Their public association comes out of the form: “Here’s the literature you need to read that gives the lie a larger concern that sensibilities kindred to theirs are kept on the to your deepest loyalties. If after consulting it seriously you insist margins, sometimes forcibly, by the religious majority. Each author upon clinging to those loyalties, have a nice life.”

secularhumanism.org December 2010 / January 2011 Free Inquiry 23 In all, the new atheists engage contemporary religious sensi- ly maintained. Perhaps Harris, a nonreductive materialist and cau- bilities after the manner of glib scientists, less interested that such tious endorser of the notion that our species tends toward altruism, engagement produces in dissenters the urge for dialogue than in ought to worry whether he “inadvertently supports” the agenda the fact that it clearly lays down lines of difference. It is for this of reductionist materialists who reject species-rooted altruism alto- reason that I stop short of accusing the new atheists of preaching gether. Even if this misconstrues Harris’s point, the larger question to the choir (somewhat intending the mixed metaphor) or of simply concerns why he would even worry about Dominionists. shock-jockeying. In the end, a part of me applauds their affirming While it is true that evangelical Christians played an important stance. The nonreligious simply are more marginalized, especially role in the reelection of President George W. Bush and that this in American culture. It is not surprising that Dennett had to explain coalition underwent powerful expansion in America under his this to his European proofreaders (as he mentions in the introduc- leadership, there is little reason to worry that such growth signals tion to his book) and that Hitchens and Dawkins, the only writers of a coming theocracy. Barack Obama’s decisive victory—the first the bunch originating from non-American soil, are predominately Democrat since Jimmy Carter to have won more than 50 percent ad­dressing themselves to Americans. of the popular vote—signals demonstrative disapproval of the exceptionalist, messianic politics that the previous administration actively instituted, and this with the likely support of a good portion of the evangelical community. In June of 2008, Frank Schaeffer, a lapsed “. . . The new atheists engage contemporary right-wing evangelical who writes responsibly and criti- religious sensibilities after the manner of glib cally about fundamentalist Christians, predicted the turn scientists, less interested that such engagement of evangelicals away from the radicalizing, alienating politics exemplified in the figure of Dr. James Dobson, produces in dissenters the urge for dialogue than in longtime host of Focus on the Family. To whatever the fact that it clearly lays down lines of difference.” extent Schaeffer was correct in this, the shrill cries of Harris and kin about a coming theocracy appear much weaker, even today, given the political turn of 2008. It is instructive along these lines to recall the exam- This sympathy I have with the new atheist project is, however, ple of a previous period in American history when similar-minded tempered by a strong reservation regarding the assumption of the secularists worried about a perceived threat of theocracy. I think unique irrationality of our times underlying its polemic. A glance at here of the example of Sidney Hook, in whose mid-century crusade critical periods in American history will suffice to prove the untruth one can find instructive parallels to that of our new atheists after the of this assumption. Moreover, I believe the religious hegemony in beginning of the new millennium. In the early 1940s, Hook wrote on America is less problematic than the new atheists make it out to be, behalf of liberal secularism against a perceived religious hegemony. and I suspect its character is ubiquitous in the scheme of American He expressed similar concerns about the religious fervors of his day, history—so much so that protesting it as the new atheists do bor- similar at times in extravagance and pathos to Harris and Hitchens. ders on another, potentially worse, form of irrationalism. Borrowing the famous characterization from Gilbert Murray, who Among the new atheists, Harris and Hitchens express the most used it to describe the surrender of ancient civilization to Christendom, extensive concerns about what they perceive as the danger of current Hook characterized his American moment as a “failure of nerve.” It evangelical trends to transform modern America into a theocracy. is tantamount to a failure of nerve, the characterization implied, for Harris in particular has claimed that even religious moderates are a civilization to give in to religious or supernatural persuasions when guilty of “inadvertently” supporting the agenda of the Dominionists, nature and its often overwhelming powers shake the foundational an extreme fringe of evangelical Christians who endorse a social borders of human experience. To complete the circle of reasoning: if agenda modeled on Calvin’s Geneva. Moderates inadvertently humans would maintain their collective nerve and only rely on reason support the Dominionists, Harris reasons, because they already and the interpretive frameworks of science, they might expect their inadvertently support fundamentalists (the next extreme down) “by civilizations to grow and flourish. In his essay “The New Failure of their lingering attachment to the unique divinity of Jesus, [and they Nerve,” Hook specifically worried that this failure might lead to a the- thereby] protect the faith of fundamentalists from public scorn.” ocracy in which everyone believes “our children cannot be properly Harris views religious moderation of any kind as a disingenuous, educated unless they are inoculated with ‘proper’ religious beliefs; unsupportable hedge that always opens itself to the slippery slope that theology and metaphysics must be given a dominant place in the of fundamentalism. curriculum of our universities . . . [and] that what is basically at stake There is an obvious problem with this line of reasoning: by the in this war is Christian civilization.” same logic, no “moderate” position of any kind could be consistent- The political climate in which Hook presented this conspiratorial

24 Free Inquiry December 2010 / January 2011 secularhumanism.org SCIENCE AND RELIGION: THE END OF A BEAUTIFUL RELATIONSHIP?

interpretation is crucial and begs comparison with our own. He first under that general name—is not reducible to the frameworks of endorsed the failure-of-nerve thesis toward the costly end of World interpretation offered by science and religion? Both are canopies of War II. As is widely historicized, a sea change of sorts occurred control and management of forms of human suffering. The notion among leftist intellectuals over the ten-year period following the that religious or other supernatural resorts consist in a failure of end of World War II and its important fallout, including especially nerve rejects as too-human an interpretive canopy dangerously the revelations of the Nuremburg trials and the death of Joseph preferred by a promethean super-humanity, one no less deluded Stalin in 1953. about the possibility of overcoming human suffering. Many leftist Marxists had up until this time pitted their hopes for I set this first problem with the failure-of-nerve thesis to the side the realization of their socialistic visions in Communist Russia. Hook in order to identify a second, more troubling problem that provides was among these neo-Marxists, and this was at the time of his endorsing the failure- of-nerve hypothesis critical of the anti-rev- olutionary, more moderate, liberal-socialist views of his counterpart, John Dewey. The disappointments besetting socialism in the “While it is true that evangelical Christians played Cold War turned Hook toward more of an important role in the reelection of President an accommodationist, Deweyan position. George W. Bush and that this coalition underwent But throughout the alteration of his specif- ic political endorsements, Hook remained powerful expansion in America under his committed to a secularism endorsing sci- leadership, there is little reason to worry that ence, reason, and the strength of nerve such growth signals a coming theocracy.” these allegedly re­quire over supernatural appeals in response to human problems. The notion that it takes nerve to stare down the cold, indifferent experiences of natural life without retreating to supernat- ural or extravagant beliefs is attractive but deeply flawed. It first the stronger link I want to establish between Hook’s secular human- of all betrays an ironically anthropomorphic, moral view of nature, ist project and that of the new atheists. In addition to the “too-hu- one that falls far short of Bacon’s view of nature as better suited to man” conception of nature the thesis betrays, its use to serve Hook’s dissection than to abstraction. The cold indifference of the disciplinary conspiratorial worries about the coming religious hegemony is his- school headmaster or proverbial wicked step-parent ill describes the torically provincial, a shortcoming that ought to give pause to those neutral object of study indicated in Bacon’s admirable conception. sharing the new atheists’ worries about contemporary religiosity. To the contrary, something like Tennyson’s “red in tooth and claw” Clearly, Hook’s worries about the coming religious cultural tyranny characterization of nature has in modern times become the preva- were overinflated. It is at least clear that even if Hook was correct lent conception, and Hook follows a strong Tennysonian line in his that the religious “war” he saw raging was waged in some signifi- moralizing naturalism. How and why has this happened? cant sense for “Christian civilization,” nothing like the state of affairs Though I cannot sufficiently develop this point here, I suggest he describes (including the religious “inoculation” of our children in that this has happened because, as is clear from the wide popularity their educational process) ever came about in American society. I of intelligent design theory, modern science does not itself offer a turn then to the case of our new atheists to diagnose the accuracy conception of nature sufficiently insulated against the moral agen- of their conspiratorial worries. das of competing worldviews. In offering his characterization of Of the Four Horsemen, Dennett is the least conspiratorial in nature, Bacon was applauding “the school of Democritus,” which, print and also the most generous to the religiously persuaded, so he claims, “went further into nature than the rest” (Organon, Book it stands to reason to use him as a gauge for the new atheists’ One, Aphorism LI). The “further” Bacon emphasized hinges on conspiratorial range. His slights against religion are more subtle approaching nature with experimental openness rather than, as he than those of his colleagues, clothed as they are in the language of put it, “giving reality and substance to things which are fleeting.” evolutionary biology. Speaking in lab-coat scientist tones, Dennett I suggest here that the depth of this critical remark is lost on us speculates as to the evolution of religious institutions and practices: moderns (and “post-moderns”) because of our stubborn inability “alongside the domestication of animals and plants, there was a to perceive natural realities in anything but human terms, be they gradual process in which the wild (self-sustaining) memes of folk scientific or religious. religion became thoroughly domesticated.” Folk religions are thus Need I say without fear of pandering or churlishness that cast by Dennett as the feral ancestors of their civilized modern nature—including the realities, forces, and phenomena we group progeny. With neither apology nor due consideration, Dennett here

secularhumanism.org December 2010 / January 2011 Free Inquiry 25 parts with a broad literature of religious anthropology that views claims and sublime assurances. It must seek to interfere with the all religious orientations as complexes of rationalist, orthodox, and lives of nonbelievers, or heretics, or adherents of other faiths” (God folk beliefs. Religious anthropologists would view his evolutionist Is Not Great, 2007, p. 17). perspective as egregiously reductionist in restricting the lineage to And lastly, from Harris in an online Q&A whose tone is well folk beliefs alone. representative of his books: “The respect that moderates accord But Dennett’s scholarly narrowness is easily lost on like-minded to religious faith has blinded them to the fact that the atrocities of readers and opens the way for their conversion to his closing, dan- September 11th were a religious exercise. Religious moderates seem gerously conspiratorial attitude. Having prepared the way with the incapable of realizing that our problem is not terrorism, but Islam.” inoculating language of evolutionism, Dennett writes: I must say that I frequently censor my undergraduate students for Remember Marxism? It used to be a sour sort of fun to tease similarly extravagant polemics, and it is disconcerting for me to dis- Marxists about the contradictions in some of their pet ideas. cover them coming from such decorated champions of naturalism and reason. I thus offer a couple of large worries about the project of the new atheists, each involving its ahistorical arrogance: first, its slurs against religious sensibilities— especially its frequent characterization of more religious “Sidney Hook . . . expressed similar concerns about ages of the past and the orthodoxies developed out the religious fervors of his day, similar at times in of them as “morbidly obsessed” (Dawkins); “bawling extravagance and pathos to Harris and Hitchens.” and babyish” (Hitchens); “incomprehensible” (Dennett); and even “passed down to us from men and women whose lives were simply ravaged by their basic igno- rance about the world” (Harris)—re­flect a monstrous and irresponsible narrowness of perspective, one that ought to trouble us all ­the more for the fact that it is The revolution of the proletariat was inevitable, good Marxists believed, but if so, why were they so eager to enlist us in their packaged in a rhetoric of Enlightenment privilege. cause?. . .Today we have a similar phenomenon brewing on the My second, related worry involves the new atheists’ conspira- religious right: the inevitability of the End Days, or the Rapture . . . torial leanings. As long as one is speaking in tones of terror about it has been another sour sort of fun to ridicule them the morning a coming religious theocracy, one might do well to remember the after, when they discover that their calculations were a little off. But, just as with the Marxists, there are some among them who are example of Martin Luther who, in his early thinking, opposed the working hard to “hasten the inevitable,” not merely anticipating theocratic tendencies of Augustinian doctrine only later to rescind the End Days with joy in their hearts, but taking political action the position in order to advocate the killing of German Jews for to bring about the conditions they think are the prerequisites their repudiation of Jesus’s divinity. Luther’s defection from reason for that occasion. And these people are not funny at all. They are dangerous, for the same reason that red-diaper babies are on this point parallels that of strong believers of all stripes whose dangerous: they put their allegiance to their creed ahead of their airs of tolerance mask propensities toward intolerance. commitment to democracy, to peace, to (earthly) justice—and to Those overly eager to identify coming theocracies can be expect- truth . . . in the end, my central policy recommendation is that we ed to harbor preferred visions of the world containing their special gently, firmly educate the people of the world, so that they can make truly informed choices about their lives. [Breaking the Spell, idea of a unified State. I worry about what those visions are for the 2007, p. 337–339] new atheists. They play their cards close but offer hints enough, as when Harris expresses his understanding of secularism as that which For me, this passage from Dennett exemplifies the insidious distinguishes “sensible people like ourselves and the mad hordes of nature of the new atheist project because, beyond the pretense religious imbeciles who have balkanized our world.” Surely such zeal of “making cultural space for secularists,” the authors expose against zealousness gives the fundamentalist lie to these self-pro- themselves in revealing ways to be bent on implanting an irrational fessed anti-fundamentalists? Strong believers beware. fear of radical religious fanaticism. I offer the following represen- tative quotes from the remaining authors. From Dawkins: “Funda­ mentalist religion is hell-bent on ruining the scientific education of countless thousands of innocent, well-meaning, eager young minds” (The God Delusion, 2006, p. 323). From Hitchens: “The level of intensity fluctuates according to Matthew Caleb Flamm is an associate professor of philosophy at Rockford time and place, but it can be stated as a truth that religion does College in Illinois. His focus is on American philosophy. not, and in the long run cannot, be content with its own marvelous

26 Free Inquiry December 2010 / January 2011 secularhumanism.org SCIENCE AND RELIGION: THE END OF A BEAUTIFUL RELATIONSHIP?

Scientists and Religious Faith

Ronald N. Giere

y focus in this article is not on science and religion in the of years. It follows that he is no friend of Intelligent Design (capital I, abstract but on scientists and their particular religious views. capital D, as he puts it), which rejects evolutionary theory. His intelli- MIn secular circles, mention of scientists and religious faith gent design is strictly lower case. Nevertheless, there are conflicts; it typically calls to mind prominent scientists who have been critical of is just that they are at much more subtle levels. religion: Richard Dawkins, Steven Weinberg, and Carl Sagan come Take cosmology. It is no part of cosmological theories that to mind. Here I will concentrate on another group of scientists, there is no creator god; it is, rather, that there is no need to posit those who have achieved distinction in their fields but also exhibit such a god. The ultimate arbiter in science is observation. But all the a strong Christian faith. My interest, moreover, is in scientists who, observations are the same whether or not one posits a creator god. since the beginning of this century, have defended their religious So there is no empirical basis for such a posit. Moreover, there is no faith in books written for a general audience. There are in fact place for a god in a scientific astronomy. It would be a mystery by dozens of such books. It would be interesting to survey a number what means any creator god interacts with the universe as depicted of these to see if any noteworthy patterns emerge. I have done a in our scientific theories. preliminary survey of this sort (but it is not large enough to draw Gingerich’s implicit reply is both methodological and meta- any general conclusions). Let us look at two such scientists, a physicist and a biologist.

Owen Gingerich Owen Gingerich is professor emeritus of “I will concentrate on another group of scientists, astronomy and of the history of science at Harvard University and a former senior those who have achieved distinction in their fields but also astronomer at the Smithsonian Astro­physical . . . since the beginning of this century, have defended their Observatory. He has written papers on the religious faith in books written for a general audience.” atmosphere of the Sun as well as the most authoritative existing account of the life and work of Nicholas Copernicus. He has been a member of many professional organizations and even has an asteroid named after him. No one can doubt his knowledge of science. Nevertheless, as physical. The methodological aspect comes out when he writes: revealed in God’s Universe (Harvard, 2006), Gingerich believes that “For me, the universe is a more coherent and congenial place if I “the universe has been created with intention and purpose” (p. assume that it embodies purpose and intention” (p. 41). Elsewhere,­ 7). But he also holds that “this belief does not interfere with the he argues that coherence is the primary ground on which scientific scientific enterprise.” It is clear that he holds the reverse view that theories are accepted or rejected (pp. 94–96). It was on such a science does not interfere with a belief in an intelligent creator. basis, he claims, that the Copernican system was initially accepted. So Gingerich claims that science and religion are compatible and It was already well established by the time empirical “proofs” such even complementary. And, indeed, he avoids obvious conflicts. For as the Foucault pendulum for the rotation of Earth and observed example, he rejects biblical literalism, agreeing with astronomers stellar parallax for its orbital motion came along. He makes the that the universe is about fourteen billion years old and the solar sys- methodological parallel between science and religion explicit when tem is at least five billion years old. He accepts evolutionary theory, he writes: “Just as we find scientific explanations credible because agreeing that humans evolved from lower forms of life over millions they hang together in a finely textured tapestry of connections, a

secularhumanism.org December 2010 / January 2011 Free Inquiry 27 coherency if you will, so also we expect teleological and theological is one without an answer in the scientific sense. It is a metaphys- explanations will have a convincing consistency” (p. 95). He goes ical question, whose answer can only come out of metaphysical on to insist that coherence does not provide “proofs” in either reasoning” (p. 70). domain. It turns out, however, that metaphysical reasoning is mainly Gingerich makes much of another methodology, or pattern of a matter of personal belief. He writes: “Evolutionists who deny inference, that may or may not reduce to coherence. This pattern of cosmic teleology and who, in placing their faith in cosmic roulette, reasoning is based on a version of what has come to be known as argue for the purposelessness of the universe are not articulating “the anthropic principle.” According to current cosmological theory, a scientifically established fact; they are advocating their personal there is only a very narrow range of possible universes that would metaphysical stance. This posture, I believe, is something that permit the formation of planets with life forms. A “strong” anthropic should be legitimately resisted” (p. 75). principle argues from this apparent “fine-tuning” of the universe to He is, however, evenhanded in applying the same reasoning to his own views: “My subjective, metaphysical view, that the universe would make more sense if a divine will operated at this level to design the universe in a purposeful way, can be neither denied nor proved by scientific means. It is a matter of belief or ideolo- “...Gingerich’s personal metaphysical views . . . gy how we choose to think about the universe, and tend toward the extravagant, such as when he it will make no difference how we do our science” (p. 101). indicates tentative support for the view that our current It seems that in the end, this book is to ‘cosmology leads logically to the idea of a be understood as an expression of Gingerich’s transcendence situated beyond time and space, personal metaphysical views, a few of which tend toward the extravagant, such as when he giving the lie to the notion that the cosmos is all indicates tentative support for the view that our there is or was or ever will be.’” current “cosmology leads logically to the idea of a transcendence situated beyond time and space, giving the lie to the notion that the cosmos is all there is or was or ever will be” (p. 78). But is the view of evolutionists that there is no purpose in our evolutionary history really not the existence of an intelligent force with the intention that self-con- a scientific matter? It is part of evolutionary theory, not personal scious humans should come into existence. A “weak” form of the opinion, that mutations are random and thus have no inherent argument claims only that the existence of humans provides evidence tendency to be adaptive. Gingerich is equivocal on this point. He that the universe must be fine-tuned the way it is. Of course, the weak writes: “Science will not collapse if some practitioners are con- form works equally well if one starts with the existence of fruit flies, vinced that there has occasionally been creative input into the long and current cosmological theory might be wrong. chain of being. Are mutations blind chance, or is God’s miraculous Gingerich, however, embraces a “strong” form of the argu- hand continually at work, disguised in the ambiguity of the uncer- ment, dismissing weak forms as too “materialistic” and leaving too tainty principle?” (p. 70). much to “blind chance.” He also uses an anthropic argument with The popular view implied in the rhetorical question is usually other starting points, for example, pointing out the fact that there called “guided evolution.” If this is indeed Gingerich’s view, he is is no atom with mass number five, which means that it takes sever- clearly in opposition to evolutionary theory as understood by most al generations of stars to produce the higher elements. Otherwise biologists. The attempt to hide “God’s miraculous hand” within there would be no higher elements and thus no life (pp. 52–55). the uncertainties of quantum theory is also a popular move among There are echoes of anthropic thinking throughout the book. It theists. The best argument presumes that probabilities are really will not have escaped the reader’s attention that all this is merely a relative frequencies in an infinite sequence of trials. In principle, cosmological version of a traditional argument from design. one could change the outcome in an infinite number of properly Gingerich also invokes metaphysics, which he reminds us spaced trials without changing the limiting relative frequencies. means “beyond physics.” He writes: “’Is the universe designed?’ is This reasoning does not work, however, if probabilities are inherent not a scientific question. . . . The reason is simple. The question . . . in individual trials, which is now the dominant scientific view of

28 Free Inquiry December 2010 / January 2011 secularhumanism.org SCIENCE AND RELIGION: THE END OF A BEAUTIFUL RELATIONSHIP?

quantum physicists. genetics. Contact with patients who were ardent Christians led him For a secularist reading this book, it still remains puzzling how to question his lack of belief. A period of questioning led him to a man so versed in the sciences could hold the views he clearly the writings of C. S. Lewis, which turned the tide. He made what does. One may take a clue from the revelation that Gingerich came he describes as “a leap of faith” (p. 31) . He returned to Yale as out of a family counting Amish ministers among its ancestors, that a research fellow working on human genetics and then took up a his immediate family was very religious, and that he received his faculty position at the University of Michigan, becoming director of undergraduate degree from a Mennonite college in Indiana. He its genome center. It was from there that he moved to the National does not mention ever having felt conflicts between his faith in Institutes of Health to direct the National Human Genome Research God and his scientific pursuits. It seems that throughout his life, Institute. His credentials, both as a scientist and committed Christian, he developed more and more sophisticated ways of reconciling his are beyond dispute. religious beliefs with the ever-changing claims of the sciences. In From the subtitle of his book, one would expect Collins to this he would be like the seventeenth-century papal astronomers stress evidence from genetics and the Human Genome Project in who found ever-more complicated ways of reconciling new observations with Ptolemaic astronomy. It is ironic that the subject of so much of Gingerich’s scholarship, Nicholas Copernicus, chose science over scripture. But then again, Copernicus also thought he was “[Collins] . . . is not sufficiently worried about the possibility investigating the workings of God’s universe. that his attitude toward Christianity might be quite Francis Collins different if he were Japanese, Chinese, Indian, or even In June of 2000, then-President Bill Clinton French. So he fails to engage secular thinkers who take the publicly announced the “completion” of The inability to show one religious tradition superior to all others Human Genome Project. Among those with him was Francis Collins, head of the inter- as grounds for rejecting all religious traditions.” national genome project. In his prepared remarks, President Clinton said: “Today we are learning the language in which God cre- ated life. We are gaining ever more awe for the complexity, the beauty, and the wonder of God’s most divine and sacred gift.” When it came his turn, favor of belief in the Christian God. But that is not what he does. Collins echoed Clinton’s remarks, concluding that “we have caught Regarding the completion of the genome project, he says: “For me, the first glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known as a believer, the uncovering of the human genome sequence held only to God.” But this was no mere echo. Collins had endorsed additional significance. This book was written in the DNA language the choice of words Clinton spoke during the speechwriting pro- by which God spoke life into being” (p. 123). This statement clearly cess. The fact is that Collins is a committed Christian as well as a presupposes that one is already a believer. respected scientist. He sets out his views on these two aspects of The arguments for belief he does give are different. The most his life in The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for important for him is the supposed existence of the “Moral Law” Belief (Free Press, 2006). in every person. For Collins, the Moral Law cannot come from the Unlike Gingerich, Collins was not brought up in a strongly material world. It must come from somewhere “outside of space Christian household. As he himself remarks, “Faith was not an and time” (p. 67). Often reference to the Moral Law is accompanied important part of my childhood” (p. 13). An enthusiastic teacher by mention of the fact that just about every culture we know about turned him on to chemistry in high school, and he went on to includes worship of some sort of supernatural being. He writes: obtain a BA in chemistry at the University of Virginia, where he “In my view, [the] DNA sequence alone, even if accompanied by a became what he later learned was an agnostic. Pursuing a PhD in vast trove of data on biological function, will never explain certain physical chemistry at Yale, he became an acknowledged atheist. special human attributes, such as the knowledge of the Moral Law Unsure that he wanted to spend his life as a research chemist, and the universal search for God. Freeing God from the burden of he applied to medical school at the University of North Carolina, special acts of creation does not remove Him as the source of the where he was introduced to his true scientific calling, medical things that make humanity special, and of the universe itself. It

secularhumanism.org December 2010 / January 2011 Free Inquiry 29 merely shows us something of how He operates” (pp. 140–41). He that we would evolve, making our existence again relatively proba- returns to the Moral Law near the end of the book, saying, “After ble. Collins rejects the first hypothesis on the basis that it gives a very twenty-eight years as a believer, the Moral Law still stands out for low probability to the actual fact that we exist. He rejects the second me as the strongest sign post to God” (p. 218). as “strain[ing] credulity.” That leaves the third hypothesis. A scientist is supposed to be especially cognizant of potential This whole argument rests on a faulty understanding of probabi- alternatives to favored hypotheses. In the case of the Moral Law listic reasoning. The probabilities associated with the first and second and the near-universal incidence across cultures of beliefs in a hypotheses assume an initial uniform distribution of infinitesimal supernatural being, the main alternatives to the actual existence of probabilities over all combinations of parameters. That would give the supernatural are based in psychology and cultural anthropology. the existence of any one possible universe, such as our own, an infin- Collins much too quickly dismisses explanations from these quarters itesimal probability, which is the supposition of the first hypothesis. as insufficient to account for the recognized phenomena. Nor does It would then take an infinity of universes to yield a high probability he give sufficient weight to problems of cultural relativity. He is not that one of these possible universes is like ours, as claimed in the sufficiently worried about the possibility that his attitude toward second hypothesis. The fundamental problem is that cosmological Christianity might be quite different if he were Japanese, Chinese, theory provides no basis whatsoever for the initial assumption of a Indian, or even French. He fails to engage secular thinkers who take uniform probability distribution or, for that matter, any distribution whatsoever, over the parameters in question. To put this criticism more generally, nothing is probable or improbable by “...Collins has not provided credible grounds for itself. The probability of any event is relative to an initial setup and the spec- rejecting the scientifically preferred first hypothesis, ification of possible outcomes. Given namely, that humans evolved to fit the environment an appropriate situation, any event can of the universe as it happens to be.” be shown to be highly improbable rela- tive to that situation. For example, rela- tive to their situation at birth, it is high- ly improbable that anyone should be reading this article just at this moment and in their current location. The bottom the inability to show one religious tradition superior to all others as line, then, is that Collins has not provided credible grounds for reject- grounds for rejecting all religious traditions. ing the scientifically preferred first hypothesis, namely, that humans The other argument for the existence of a deity that Collins takes evolved to fit the environment of the universe as it happens to be. very seriously is the origin of the universe, about which he claims: When it comes to biology, Collins’s views are scientifically ortho- “The Big Bang cries out for a divine explanation. It forces the conclu- dox. Regarding evolutionary theory, he says: “No serious biologist sion that nature had a defined beginning. I cannot see how nature today doubts the theory of evolution to explain the marvelous could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of complexity and diversity of life” (p. 99). Later he adds, “Truly it can space and time could have done that” (p. 67). Presumably it is in the be said that not only biology but medicine would be impossible to power of supernatural forces to create themselves. understand without the theory of evolution” (p. 133). He rejects Like Gingerich, he also lays great stress on the “fine-tuning” the creationist’s distinction between macro- and microevolution, found in current theories of cosmology (pp. 57–84). In Collins’s ver- saying, “The distinction between macroevolution and microevolu- sion of the argument, there are only three possible hypotheses for tion is . . . rather arbitrary; larger changes that result in new species the fact that we are here: (1) Our actual universe happens to have are a result of a succession of smaller incremental steps” (p. 132). the characteristics it does, and we evolved to fit the environment He is contemptuous of Young Earth creationism, asking, “Can faith that resulted here on Earth. Collins claims that, on this hypothesis, in a loving God be built on a foundation of lies about nature?” (p. our existence would be very improbable. (2) There are very many 176). He concludes: “Young Earth Creationism has reached a point universes (a “multiverse”) with different characteristics. In this case it of intellectual bankruptcy, both in its science and in its theology” is quite probable that a few of these universes would have charac- (p. 177). He is not much more tolerant of Intelligent Design, saying, teristics similar to those of our universe. So our existence in this case “Ultimately a ‘God of the gaps’ religion runs a huge risk of simply is much less improbable than according to the first hypothesis. (3) discrediting faith. We must not repeat this mistake in the current There is one universe that was designed by an intelligent creator so era. Intelligent Design fits into this discouraging tradition, and faces

30 Free Inquiry December 2010 / January 2011 secularhumanism.org SCIENCE AND RELIGION: THE END OF A BEAUTIFUL RELATIONSHIP?

the same ultimate demise” (p. 193). should not be too quick to dismiss them as enemies of a secular In several places, Collins insists that God must exist “outside society. Gingerich is an urbane man who is a gifted teacher and the natural world” (p. 30), “outside of space and time” (p. 67), or a collector of seashells. Collins once spent some time caring for “outside of nature” (p. 165). Collins’s motivation for wanting to patients at a mission hospital in a small African village. These are place God outside space and time is clear. He wants there to be no not bad people. Both reject the antiscientific positions of Creation conflict between his science and his faith. Science clearly operates Science and Intelligent Design. As both scientists and Christians, only inside space and time. His goal of reconciling science and faith their objections to these movements may carry more weight in is stated clearly at the beginning of the book. “In my view there is religious circles than the objections of secular scientists. Indeed it no conflict in being a rigorous scientist and a person who believes would not be surprising if one of their aims in writing their books in a God who takes a personal interest in each one of us. Science’s was to distance themselves from these movements. domain is to explore nature. God’s domain is in the spiritual world, On the other hand, scientists who write such books must be to a realm not possible to explore with the tools and language of some extent motivated by a desire to proclaim their faith. But once science” (p. 6). His book inadvertently shows how difficult it is to maintain the desired separation.

Reflections/Hypotheses One cannot draw reliable conclusions from two cases, but they can be used to formulate hypotheses “Collins’s motivation for wanting to place God for further study. Here are three suggestions. outside space and time is clear. He wants there In these two cases, the sources of religious belief for these scientists are separate from their science. It to be no conflict between his science and his faith.” is not the case that pursuing their science led them to believe there must be a god or even led them to consider the possibility. Rather, their belief came from other life experiences, here either growing up in a very religious family environment or some later personal experiences. That leaves these scientists in the position of trying books are published, the character and motivations of the authors to reconcile two apparently conflicting aspects of their lives. The cease to be relevant. It is the uses to which others put the books difficulty of this task often leads to contradiction: offering scientific that matters. Here one can be pretty sure that more radical critics of arguments for supernaturalism, such as fine-tuning, while also argu- secular cosmology and evolutionary theory will ignore the rejections ing that science and religion operate in separate realms. One can’t and focus on the fact that these established scientists are theists. have it both ways. Theologians and others not versed in the sciences will be all too Scientists are often criticized for offering opinions about matters prone to take the views of these scientists as representing sound in areas outside their scientific specialties. Gingerich and Collins are scientific arguments for theism. So, from a secular point of view, both subject to such criticism. Being an astronomer, Gingerich is bet- one can argue that these scientists do more harm to science than ter positioned than most religiously oriented scientists to invoke ideas good. from cosmology. He is not an expert in quantum theory or proba- bility theory. He has no special understanding of evolutionary theory or genetics. Collins’s position is even more problematic. His main arguments for the existence of a creator god are drawn from areas where his own expertise is weakest. He is no expert on the Moral Law or on the anthropology of human belief systems. Nor is he an expert in cosmology or probability theory. Where he is an expert, in Ronald N. Giere is professor emeritus of philosophy and a member and former evolutionary theory and genetics, his views are little different from director of the Center for Philosophy of Science at the University of Minnesota. those of his secular colleagues. And, of course, neither Gingerich nor In addition to many papers on the philosophy of science, he is the author Collins has any credentials in theology. of Understanding Scientific Reason (5th edition 2006); Explaining Science: Finally, one might ask what role religious scientists play in the A Cognitive Approach (1998); Science without Laws (1999); and Scientific general conflict between secular and religious approaches to our Perspectivism (2006). political and social lives, both individually and collectively. Here one

secularhumanism.org December 2010 / January 2011 Free Inquiry 31 The Unmaking of Wisdom How We Compromised Reason’s Capacity to Transform the Human Condition Part I: How Rationalism Lost Its Way Andy Norman

ne hundred generations ago, a curious character from of reason and science. Two world wars later—not to mention the Athens, Greece, staked his life on a radical proposition: by advent of nuclear weaponry, the persistence of poverty and fam- Ocultivating reason, he argued, we can gain wisdom, promote ine, the accumulation of industrial toxins, and accelerating climate moral development, and fashion more just and harmonious societ- change—doubts have crept in. Was Western civilization really right ies. Socrates would pay a steep price for his prescient wager: he to embrace reason as a guiding ideal? was tried for espousing heretical views, found guilty, and put to The idea that reason is responsible for such tragedies enjoyed death. His cause found a new champion, though, when a young some popularity in recent decades, but it is almost certainly false. protégé captured the story in a memorable series of dialogues. Indeed, it is not hard to show that these tragedies involved signifi- Plato’s writings have inspired advocates of reason, or rationalists, cant abdications of reason. Even so, modernity’s passion for reason ever since. has given way to postmodern ambivalence. Facile intellectual move- Rationalists contend that reason can be a powerful force for ments contest reason’s status as an ideal, and absent a compelling good. History bears out this contention. Devotion to reason has vision of a brighter, reason-guided future, many well-educated inspired periods of openness, learning, and scientific progress. It Westerners lack a sense of common purpose. Meanwhile, millions has loosened the grip of ignorance and superstition. It has pro- turn to intolerant religious fundamentalisms for answers. Billions pelled the development of more inclusive and humane moral codes, more, of less militant bent, embrace faith as a virtue—or view it, at conceived more just and tolerant modes of governance, and paved any rate, as a psychological (or epistemological) necessity. Sectarian the way for technologies that improve quality of life. Of course, divisions abound, and the idea that a commitment to reason might these advances had other contributing causes—significant histori- unite us, promoting understanding and prosperity, slowly fades. The cal developments always do—but no one who has studied history centrifugal forces of economic injustice, fundamentalist fervor, and doubts that a commitment to reasoned inquiry was an essential resource scarcity are overwhelming the centripetal pull of reason; ingredient in each case. centuries of progress are in real danger of unraveling. We remain embarrassingly far, though, from realizing the Clearly, something must be done. But what? We can start by rationalist ideal. Two thousand and four hundred years after understanding the root cause of rationalism’s failure to win hearts Socrates, folly and unreason plague humanity, wreaking havoc on a and minds. In his 2007 address to the American Academy of Arts mind-numbing scale. Religious zealotry inspires senseless violence. and Sciences, E. L. Doctorow challenged his audience to fathom the Stupid wars cause terrible suffering. Poverty, hunger, and injustice troubled state of the movement (“The White Whale,” FI, October/ afflict billions. We plunder the planet for short-term gain, straining November 2008): ecosystems and courting environmental collapse. Our political and What does it say about the United States today that this fellowship economic arrangements threaten Earth’s capacity to support us, of the arts, sciences and philosophy is called to affirm knowledge yet the wisdom needed to create just, sustainable alternatives is in as a public good? What have we come to when the self-evident conspicuously short supply. has to be argued as if—500 years into the Enlightenment and 230- Where will we find the wisdom our world so desperately some years into the life of this republic—it is a proposition still to be proven? How does it happen that the modernist project that needs? Both history and common sense suggest that commitment has endowed mankind with the scientific method, the concept to reason is the surest way to promote wisdom. If this is right, a of objective evidence, the culture of factuality responsible for the revival of rationalism would seem to be in order. Indeed, of the good and extended life we enjoy in the high-tech world of our free- options that remain, it may be our best bet. dom, . . . How does it happen for reason to have been so deflected . . . and vulnerable to unreason?

What Sidelined Rationalism? The generic fact of reason’s vulnerability to unreason, pre- The rationalist project, though, seems to have stalled. The twentieth sumably, is in no great need of explanation: human nature pretty century was supposed to demonstrate the life-enhancing promise much guarantees that irrational impulses will sometimes win out.

32 Free Inquiry December 2010 / January 2011 secularhumanism.org SCIENCE AND RELIGION: THE END OF A BEAUTIFUL RELATIONSHIP?

Doctorow’s question makes sense, though, when we reflect on Meanwhile, outside the circle of professional philosophers, a humanity’s variable receptivity to reason. The cause of reason was common misconception has led millions of thoughtful, tolerant once ascendant, and good things came of it. It is now in decline. people to conclude that rationality is ultimately “relative” to one Why? And why have we not made more headway in promoting or another set of “basic” beliefs. The thinking goes something like reason as a way of life? this: suppose your basic commitments are different from mine. Without attempting a definitive answer, Doctorow discusses “Basic” means “as fundamental as it gets,” so in such cases, there some of the forces that appear to be “deflecting” reason, including is (by definition) nothing more fundamental to which reason can on his list of culprits “racism, nativism, . . . fundamentalist fantasy, appeal. Thus reason is impotent to adjudicate disputes between and the righteous priorities of wealth.” It is natural to mention such parties with different basic commitments. What is rational for me forces in this connection, but none constitutes a root-cause diag- might not be rational for you, and there is no objective standard for nosis. After all, fundamentalist fantasy and racism are part of the resolving such differences. phenomenon—the persistence of unreason—to be explained, and It seems that a certain understanding of reason—one closely nativist prejudice and the righteous priorities of wealth are some- tied to the notion of “basic” belief—breeds relativism and, with thing like historical constants, hence unable to explain historical it, pessimism about reason’s potential. It doesn’t seem to matter variation in humanity’s commitment to reason. that philosophers have challenged such thinking many times: like a There is little to be gained from railing against the usual suspects. weed, it keeps coming back. We have tried combating unreason by challenging The same misconception, it turns out, robs rationalists of fundamentalist fantasy, racism, wishful thinking, and the like, and these efforts, though noble and import- ant, do not appear to hold the promise of transfor- mational change. What we need is a game-chang- “We have tried combating unreason by challenging er—something that enables a fundamental course fundamentalist fantasy, racism, wishful thinking, correction. To get the rationalist project back on track, we need a diagnosis that reveals the root cause of its and the like, and these efforts, though noble derailment. We need a prescription that brings clarity and important, do not appear to hold the promise and direction to the task of cultivating wisdom. of transformational change. What we need Years ago, I stumbled upon an intriguing expla- is a game-changer. . . .” nation of how the cause of reason lost momentum and cultural currency. I began testing the hypothesis and found, to my surprise, that it brought a stunning clarity to the issue. I have since pieced together the truly remarkable story of how rationalism lost its way. The deep conviction. For under its influence, conviction is easily confused reason the rationalist movement failed to take root, and blossom with dogmatic tenacity. For example, the conviction that ani- into its full potential, is conceptual. As we shall see, a seductive mates Richard Dawkins’s critiques of religion is often mistaken misconception has lured the ship of rationalism onto the shoals of for dogmatic attachment to atheism. Clearly, though, one can ruin, in the process blocking meaningful progress toward collective feel strongly about something without becoming closed-minded wisdom. Moreover, the culprit is one of rationalism’s own most or turning a blind eye to evidence. The prevailing understanding cherished assumptions. We rationalists must get our own house of reason, though, obscures this difference, making wishy-washy in order before we can inspire a broad movement for reason as a nonattachment seem the only alternative to closed-mindedness. The confusion is especially pronounced among those anxious to way of life. appear open-minded. The Enemy Inside the Gates Among those less concerned with open-mindedness, the pre- vailing understanding serves to excuse a dangerous closed-mind- The rationalist project is in the middle of its third millennium, edness. The argument—which I do not advance but merely dis- and—in a true scandal—we still don’t have an adequate account play—goes something like this: everybody who stands for anything of reason’s requirements. Philosophers have explored dozens of must have fundamental commitments—things they accept without alternatives, but even the best are riddled with problems and further question or justifying reasons. A believer’s faith and a consensus remains elusive. Moreover, epistemology (the branch of scientist’s basic assumptions are each of this type, hence on an philosophy that focuses on things like knowledge and reason) has epistemological par. Each is, in an important sense, nonnegotiable. become “academic” in the worst sense: preoccupied with arcane Like everyone else, scientists must take things for granted, so ratio- considerations, haunted by a radical, all-corrosive skepticism, and nalist critiques of (say) religious closed-mindedness are hypocritical seldom taken seriously outside a small circle of specialists.

secularhumanism.org December 2010 / January 2011 Free Inquiry 33 at best. modern rationalism, paving the way for some major twentieth-cen- There is little doubt that this argument has gained currency. I tury tragedies. Could our civilization descend into another dark hear students voice variants of it all the time. Presumably, it allows age? Yes. It is happening already. The stakes could not be higher. millions of people to rationalize dogmatic commitment and still This time, we must get reason right. think of themselves as reasonable. Meanwhile, rationalists have failed to successfully promote an understanding of reason that Two Models of Reason blocks such self-serving sophistry. To get reason right, we must begin at the beginning. Rationalism’s These failures stem from an unresolved tension at the heart founder and patron saint had a modus operandi that presupposed of rationalism. A simple argument serves to bring this tension to a certain understanding of reason’s requirements. When Socrates the surface. It takes the form of a dilemma that pits the rationalist wanted to determine the worthiness of a claim, he would test it commitment to thoroughgoing open-mindedness against the hope with questions and see how it fared. The implied standard in such that there exists a principled way of distinguishing reasonable from an approach was, quite simply, this: judgments that survive ques- tioning might merit acceptance, but those that don’t, don’t. Reasonable beliefs differ from unreasonable ones by being dialectically defensible. I call this idea—that “Radical skepticism, relativism, and dogmatism: reasonable beliefs are the ones that can withstand ques- tioning—the “Socratic” model of reason. the cause of reason faced these same difficulties in As we shall see, there is much to recommend this antiquity. Rationalists failed to resolve them then, model. A curious thing happened, though, before and a thousand years of dogmatic faith ensued. . . . Socrates’s example could become the guiding light of the rationalist program: another understanding of This time, we must get reason right.” reason eclipsed it. The story of this fateful event needs telling, for this alternative conception captured the imagination of philosophers and worked its way into the very language we use to think and talk about reason. unreasonable beliefs. It goes like this: Either we treat everything as It became an article of widespread faith, one that quietly subverts open to question, or we don’t. If we do—and the rationalist com- the rationalist enterprise. By telling this story, I hope to expose a mitment to thoroughgoing open-mindedness seems to mandate disastrous conceptual error and give rationalism a fighting chance nothing less—then a critic may question the rational credentials to become what we always hoped it would be: a driving force for of any claim whatever. Of course, he may also question any claim a more humane and prosperous world. brought forward in support of another. The supply of reasons is One aspect of the Socratic model likely bothered Plato: it finite, though, so a sufficiently rigorous and persistent questioner implied that the realm of ideas is articulated by the process of will always win in the end. Apparent cases of reasonable belief, it asking and answering questions. More precisely, it implied that seems, are mere artifacts of our customary complacency and lack reason must be understood by reference to a fluid practice roiled of rigor: for on the assumption that everything is open to question, by shifting epistemic demands and contingently available epistemic any fully rigorous testing of a belief’s credentials must eventually supplies. On this picture, reason-giving performances of various return a negative verdict. In other words, if everything is open to types can alter the standing of the claims discussed; epistemic question, the skeptic ultimately wins and rationality is exposed as status is subject to the shifting vagaries of a messy human activity. a pretense. The alternative, though, is equally corrosive of genuine Plato hoped that knowledge—especially moral knowledge— rationality. For if some things are exempt from critical questioning, would prove to be built on firmer stuff. So he suggested another rationality may prove possible but only relative to one or another model, one suggesting stasis. In fact, his metaphor of choice set of essentially dogmatic commitments. Dogmatic commitment, stressed this very fixity. Knowledge, he proposed, differs from in other words, appears unavoidable, hence excusable. Either way, mere opinion by being “tethered”—literally tied down—with a the genuine rationality we had hoped for proves impossible. logos, or reason. Put differently, reasonable judgments differ from Following William Warren Bartley, I will call this argument the unreasonable ones by being anchored or grounded. For Plato, the “dilemma of ultimate commitment.” As we shall see, rationalism theorems of Euclidean geometry—each derived, via sure steps from must untangle this knot to realize its life-enhancing promise. axioms—represented the ideal. There is an intuitive picture here, Radical skepticism, relativism, and dogmatism: the cause of rea- one of the most natural thoughts one can have on the subject, son faced these same difficulties in antiquity. Rationalists failed to specifically: reasonable judgments are reasonable because they rest resolve them then, and a thousand years of dogmatic faith ensued: atop good reasons. More broadly, being reasonable is a matter of a period of ignorance, folly, and suffering that truly deserved the having adequate support. I call this the “Platonic” picture of reason. label “Dark Ages.” Arguably, the very same difficulties sidetracked Plato’s model of reason was meant as a friendly complement

34 Free Inquiry December 2010 / January 2011 secularhumanism.org to the Socratic model, and even today, they are often viewed by subtle, context-sensitive discriminatory powers—with a global, as complementary notions. In fact, though, Plato’s idea is not indiscriminate rule and end up with a better, more stable under- a friendly complement to the Socratic model. It had—and still standing of reason’s nature. has—unintended logical, methodological, and in the end, cultural This was not a winning bet. Not only did the better understand- consequences. This fact is of great moment and merits illustration. ing of reason never materialize, the gambit drove a deep wedge between theory and practice. Henceforth, practice would be gov- Plato’s Wager erned by one understanding of reason’s requirements, and theory On the Platonic picture, you evaluate a claim by examining its would be governed by another. The split has drained epistemology grounds, and a solid basis is sufficient to ensure its status as ratio- of practical relevance and blocked the path to an understanding nally permissible. On the Socratic model, however, the presence of reason that is both philosophically enriched and pragmatically of grounds is never enough to rule out the possibility of a ratio- useful. nality-undermining question or challenge, possibly from another At the time, however, the fundamental incompatibility of quarter. Reasons for can count, but so, too, can reasons against. Plato’s and Socrates’s models of reason was less than clear. Both Yes, evaluation requires the examination of considerations with models were appealing, and it was tempting to merge them. The the potential to validate, but it also requires that we look at those merger was accomplished by interpreting dialectical practice as the with the potential to invalidate. Can evaluation focus narrowly on sensible trace of an underlying intelligible order—a structure that supporting reasons or evidence, ignoring potentially undermining epistemological inquiry might some day fully illuminate. Ever since, considerations? On the Platonic picture, the answer is yes; on the philosophers have accepted the Platonic picture, sought grounds Socratic, no. Hence the Socratic and Platonic models suggest very different ways of con- ducting our epistemic affairs. There is another, more fateful, difference. “Henceforth, practice would be governed by one It concerns the necessity of supporting con- siderations. On the Socratic model, the need understanding of reason’s requirements, and theory for supporting evidence may be common, would be governed by another. The split has drained but it is ultimately situational: when ques- epistemology of practical relevance and blocked the path tions calling for grounds “arise,” they must be answered, but their arising is a contingent to an understanding of reason that is both philosophically matter. Some claims stand in need of support enriched and pragmatically useful.” but others don’t, and context matters. In normal circumstances, for example, “I feel fine today,” “Two plus three is five,” and “Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo” are viewed as rationally in order and not in need of justifying support. where ordinarily we would not require them, and thereby hoped The same is true of “Treat others as you would have them treat to illuminate the logical structure of our knowledge. Often, this has you,” “Dolphins have large brains,” and “We should postpone the meant keeping two sets of books and vacillating between structural picnic if it rains.” This is in fact how skilled thinkers treat countless and dialectical interpretations of epistemic phenomena. judgments: as presumptively rational, or reasonable by default. By By the time Plato founded his Academy—an early precursor of contrast, Plato was suggesting that adequate support is the very the modern university—the misconception that would subvert the form or essence of reason, hence a requirement in every case— rationalist enterprise already had its foot in the door. Rationalism was which is to say, all candidates for rational acceptance need back- barely out of the gates, and its Trojan horse was already inside it. ing, and all the reasonable ones get it. Unlike Socrates, Plato made the demand for grounds universal. A Regress Redressed It is hard to overstate the significance of this development. Did Plato inadvertently compromise the very rationalist project he Plato was in truth proposing a profoundly revisionary conception. inspired? Consider the fact that Plato’s model of reason immediate- The key difference bears repeating: our pre-theoretic understand- ly generates what philosophers call a “regress.” For on this account, ing treats many judgments as presumptively reasonable—as rea- reasonable belief requires supporting reasons. The reasons, though, sonable on their face and not in need of backing—but the Platonic must themselves be reasonable to provide genuine support. Thus conception implied that every judgment stands in need of support. they must stand at the receiving end of rationality-conferring infer- In effect he claimed that no judgments are presumptively reason- ences too, and so on with the next set of reasons. Taken seriously, able. Plato was essentially betting that we could replace our ordi- in other words, the model seems to imply that one needs to have nary, situated grasp of what needs justifying—a grasp governed an impossibly long chain of reasons in order to have even one

secularhumanism.org December 2010 / January 2011 Free Inquiry 35 reasonable belief! became the leading question in philosophical discussion. ‘You can This regress argument can easily seem a bit of technical soph- have no reason to believe that’ became the skeptical refrain” (The istry. Real-life reasoning never goes on forever, so why worry Modes of Skepticism by Julia Annas and Jonathan Barnes). about it? This response misses the point. The point is that the The best explanation of this curious episode in the history of Platonic conception leads in a circle. Plato’s account tells us that philosophy is this: Plato’s early followers were in thrall to his con- a judgment’s being reasonable consists in its having a supporting cept of reason. The Platonic conception had made an all-corrosive argument. When we ask, though, how an argument can be gen- skepticism appear the only alternative to dogmatism. Of course, uinely supportive, we are directed back to the idea of its premises from the standpoint of serious researchers in other fields, such being reasonable. It is as if we were to say: “Claims are only as good “Academic” skepticism seemed ridiculous. (Indeed, this is the likely as the arguments that back them up,” then add: “Arguments are origin of the disparaging phrase “merely academic.”) Episte­mology only as good as the claims that make them up.” The prospect of an had begun its long decline into near-irrelevance. endless chain of reasons is merely a symptom; the real problem is Naturally, academic skepticism proved unstable. The pragmatic that two components of the Platonic picture pass the explanatory need to distinguish between more and less reasonable claims soon buck to the other. reasserted itself. This led early Christian thinkers to try a different The difficulty is precisely analogous to the famed causal regress tack. Questioning cannot go on forever, they reasoned, so we must accept some things on faith. In the same way that the creator god (likened to Aristotle’s First Cause) can halt the regress of causes, faith in God can halt the regress of reasons. Just as God provides the true and only pos- “By the time modernity was taking its first wobbly sible basis for existence, faith provides the true and only steps, Plato’s conception had dominated possible basis for knowledge. This understanding of the “space of reasons” would attempts to understand reason’s requirements prevail, with minor alterations, for more than a thou- for close to two thousand years.” sand years. It helped entrench an orthodoxy that would systematically discourage challenges to church teaching. Medieval epistemology reached its fullest expression in the twelfth century writings of Thomas Aquinas. As Aquinas saw it, “All knowledge proceeds from first principles”—principles themselves underwrit- problem, which goes something like this: it seems nothing happens ten by faith-enabled “apprehensions of intelligible form” (The without an antecedent cause, but before such a cause can cause Cambridge Companion to Aquinas, edited by Norman Kretzmann anything, it must itself happen, and that requires yet another, even and Eleonore Stump, 1993). This view would hold sway well into earlier cause. Thus it seems an impossibly long chain of causes is the sixteenth century. needed for anything at all to happen. How then can the origins Thus, Aristotle, the ancient skeptics, and leading medieval of the universe, or indeed anything that has happened since, be thinkers came to very different conclusions. But they all took it for fully explained? Aristotle—Plato’s most gifted student—was much granted that a belief must be somehow warranted or supported to impressed by these arguments, and in answer to them developed count as reasonable. That is, they shared a commitment to Plato’s parallel pictures of the causal and epistemic realms. He reasoned picture of reason. By the time modernity was taking its first wobbly that a “First Cause” must preside over the causal order, imparting steps, Plato’s conception had dominated attempts to understand motion to all that moves, and that “first principles” must preside reason’s requirements for close to two thousand years. The European over the rational order, imparting rational validity to all knowledge. Enlightenment was about to turn the worldview of the West upside In this way, Plato’s concept of reason exerted a decisive influence down, but the Platonic conception, it turns out, wasn’t through. In on Aristotle’s picture of knowledge. fact, it was about to harness a fascinating mechanism to embed itself yet more deeply in our collective consciousness. Ancient Skepticism and Medieval Faith Aristotle’s solution, though, did not satisfy the philosophers of Gravity’s Cradle, Gravity’s Grave Plato’s Academy. They understood that first principles could them- By the late sixteenth century, the rationalist project had entered selves be questioned and concluded instead that rigorous reflection a new phase. The printing press had dramatically expanded the on the nature of reason leads invariably to skepticism. According­ to reach of ideas, and a new spirit of openness and critical inquiry had leading scholars, for more than two hundred years the Academy swept through Europe. Traditional orthodoxies were challenged, and philosophers employed a skeptical strategy that “attempted to the solar system was turned inside out. Revela­tions of corruption show that all claims were groundless. ‘Why do you believe that?’ emboldened critics of the Catholic Church, and Europeans took a

36 Free Inquiry December 2010 / January 2011 secularhumanism.org more skeptical view of religious authority. Protestants challenged the son requires support. The idea that support is the hallmark of ratio- Church’s authority to interpret God’s will, the Church fought back nal judgment had actually been projecting a gravitational field onto by persecuting heretics, and for one hundred years, religious wars the space of reasons for centuries. As we might put it today, the wracked the continent. Platonic picture gives that space a distinct curvature. Descartes’s These developments dealt a severe blow to fideism—the idea most decisive contribution was to grasp this and make it explicit. that faith ought properly to determine our fundamental commit- More precisely, he popularized the foundations metaphor, thereby ments. It became abundantly clear to all who chose to reflect on giving generations of philosophers an intuitive, almost visceral the matter that faith-based rationality was a recipe for sectarian sense of the “physics” of Plato’s space of reasons—as a place conflict, ignorance, and intolerance. Meanwhile,­ positive advances­ where nothing stands firm or merits acceptance unless something in the sciences made a return to radical skepticism impossible. else supports it. (It must be something else, of course, because an Galileo’s discovery of Jupiter’s moons, for example, demonstrated idea can no more support itself than a weighty object can levitate; beyond all reasonable doubt that some knowl- edge was not just possible but actual. Clearly, reason must play a role in resolving even basic differences. The search was on for an account of knowledge’s true basis. It fell to the French philosopher Rene “Modern thinkers made heroic efforts to revive rationalism Descartes to frame the problem in its distinc- . . . . But they did not untangle the conceptual knot tively modern form. If we hope to establish anything “firm and lasting in the sciences,” Plato had tied. Indeed, they had drawn it tighter.” Descartes wrote, we must raze the foun- dations of received opinion and build all of knowledge afresh upon beliefs that cannot be doubted. His candidate for foundational belief (the famous cogito—popularly ren- dered as “I think, therefore I am”) would become a topic of lively gravity rules out bootstrap levitation.) Of course, Descartes did not dispute, but prove, in the end, to furnish too slim a basis for a see that epistemic gravity was an artifact of Plato’s model; to him, robust system. However, it was not Descartes’s solution but his it was simply a “fact” about the space of reasons, and an obvious framing of the problem that would prove decisive. In particular, his one at that. clever use of the foundations metaphor would capture the imagina- The metaphor proved irresistible. It caught on and generated an tions of generations of thinkers and decisively shape our collective entire idiom for thinking and talking about reason. Gravitationally understanding of reason. loaded terms like baseless, grounded, unfounded, and supported This metaphor gave modern thinkers a convenient way of cast- gained currency; people’s intuitive sense of how things work in the ing the central philosophical problem of the age: On what foun- space of reasons adjusted accordingly. In this way, the Platonic pic- dation does true knowledge rest? But it also did something more ture actually became embedded in our language, making it difficult subtle and far-reaching, something that has, until now, escaped to imagine that rational merit might consist in anything other than a solid support structure. This is how foundationalism—the doc- philosophical notice: the Cartesian foundations metaphor project- trine that knowledge rests on a stratum of “basic” beliefs—came ed a gravitational field onto the space of reasons. In other words, to seem self-evident to many of the greatest minds of the modern the idea that knowledge needs a foundation only makes sense era. In fact, the Platonic conception enjoyed the nearly unanimous if, absent support, beliefs invariably gravitate to their (epistemic) support of modernity’s great thinkers: demise. And this is precisely what Descartes presupposed. Indeed, he declared it a “fact” that “the destruction of the foundations [of “There can be no certainty of the last conclusion, without opinion] of necessity brings with it the downfall of the rest of the a certainty of all those affirmations and negations, on edifice.” Claims are not to be upheld unless there is something to which it was grounded and inferred.” —Thomas Hobbes hold them up; “baseless,” “groundless,” or “unsupported” claims “[Do] not entertain any proposition with greater assurance are unworthy. These thoughts presuppose what we might call than the proofs it is built upon will warrant.” “epistemic gravity.” But what is this mysterious force, exactly? —John Locke Where does it come from? Why should we suppose that it exists, let alone that it pervades the space of reasons? “If I ask why you believe any matter of fact, which you A moment’s reflection reveals the conceptual origins of epis- relate, you must tell me some reason . . . or allow that temic gravity: it was implicit all along in the Platonic idea that rea- your belief is entirely without foundation.”

secularhumanism.org December 2010 / January 2011 Free Inquiry 37 —David Hume Part 2 of this essay, to appear in the next issue of Free Inquiry, aims to demonstrate the bankruptcy of the Platonic paradigm and show how “The conclusions of reason are all built upon first princi- we can move beyond it.—Eds. ples, and can have no other foundation.” —Thomas Reid Further Reading “In virtue of the principle of sufficient reason, we assume Annas, Julia, and Jonathan Barnes. The Modes of Skepticism. Cambridge, that no fact can be true or real and no judgment correct England: Cambridge University Press, 1985. without there being a sufficient reason or ground why it is Bartley, William Warren. The Retreat to Commitment. Chicago: Open Court thus and not otherwise.” —Gottfried Leibniz Publishing, 1984. “Every proposition must have a reason.” —Immanuel Kant This list could easily be multiplied, for the Platonic conception was almost universally assumed. Moreover, such tributes to Plato’s model were not ancillary to the philosophies of these thinkers. In each case, the possibility of knowledge (given the presumed need for solid foundations) becomes one, or in some cases the, central problem. The Platonic concept of reason, in other words, not only survived the Enlightenment; it traversed it in grand style, borne along by the foundations metaphor and its attendant assumption Andy Norman teaches philosophy at Carnegie Mellon University. He is of epistemic gravity. Modern thinkers made heroic efforts to revive completing a book that fully develops the hypothesis explored in this rationalism, and in some respects, they were successful. But they essay. Thoughtful readers and potential collaborators are invited to con- did not untangle the conceptual knot Plato had tied. Indeed, they tact him through the magazine. had drawn it tighter.

Earn your master’s degree in Science and the Public through the University at Buffalo and the Center for Inquiry! • Explore the methods and outlook of science as they intersect with public culture and public policy. This degree is ideal for enhancing careers in science education, public policy, and science journalism—and prepares you for positions that involve communicating about science. • This unique two-year graduate degree is entirely online. Take courses from anywhere in the world at your own pace! Courses include: Science, Technology, and Human Values; Research Ethics; Critical Thinking; Scientific Writing; Informal Science Education; Science Curricula; and History and Philosophy of Science.

For details, visit www.gse.buffalo.edu/online/science. Questions? Contact John Shook, Vice President for Research, at [email protected].

38 Free Inquiry December 2010 / January 2011 secularhumanism.org Why I Am Not a Luddite

Kristi DeMeester

t’s a Tuesday afternoon, and my eleventh-grade students are driven world. booting up the computers in my school’s computer lab to begin Iresearch for a recently assigned paper. They chat with one anoth- Learning the Rules er casually as they log in and open their Internet browsers to begin Whenever someone joined my church, he or she had to begin abiding work. I marvel as I watch them swiftly maneuvering through web- by certain rules. As a woman, I could not cut my hair because it served sites, online databases, and the school’s word-processing program as a covering for my modesty; I could not wear makeup because it with ease. As they open and minimize multiple screens to copy and belonged to the world, and I needed to maintain my purity; I could paste text into three separate documents, they don’t think twice not wear jewelry because such unnecessary adornment was a prod- about what they are doing or how they learned to do it. Impressed uct of vanity; my skirts had to pass my knees. Pants and shorts were as I am with their skills, I expect nothing less of them when assign- not allowed because such garments belonged to men; my shirts ments ask them to utilize technology. could not be sleeveless lest I draw lascivious attention to my body. Most elementary schools have been offering some sort of Granted, these rules applied to the entire female congregation, not computer instruction since the late 1980s; however, during my own elementary school years in the early 1990s—a period of great advancement in technology—the strictly reli- During my elementary school years, gious Pentecostal private school I attended my strictly religious Pentecostal private school forbade the use of computers. Year after year, students would graduate from our small forbade the use of computers. It still does. school and pack their bags for university or look forward to beginning first jobs—but quickly realize that because their church had forbidden them access to computers, they lacked a skill necessary just to me; we were all expected to follow them or else God would for success in academia or the workplace. Many of these students demonstrate his displeasure. The men had a separate set of rules eventually dropped out of college and, feeling defeated, returned concerning dress, and there were other rules the entire congrega- home to take low-paying part-time jobs or to marry. Others found tion had to follow. themselves struggling to adapt to a world that demanded experi- Televisions were not allowed in members’ homes. With its ence with technology; all too often, these students missed out on images of sinful premarital sex, violence, and fast lifestyles, television important opportunities because of their limited experience. could influence the mind and tempt the faithful toward a damning Computers—and computer programs, especially—have pre- lifestyle. To have a television in one’s home suggested that a family sented me with unique challenges in recent years when I’ve been engaged in loose behavior, what the church called “living in the asked to write research papers in Microsoft Word, create presenta- world.” If a child played at another family’s house and noticed a tions in PowerPoint, or make spreadsheets in Excel. I still struggle television, that shocking fact would most certainly be revealed to with adapting to new technologies, and I can’t help but wonder if the visiting child’s parents, and the accused family would become this is because my church’s private school never provided me (or the source of nasty church gossip. my classmates) with computer instruction. Parents and teachers Movies—regardless of content—were also off-limits. For rea- in Pentecostal churches and other private schools that still do not sons similar to those for the ban on television, movies were con- provide computer instruction must understand that as their children sidered to be of the world, tempting the viewer with sexual acts, and students move on to universities, two-year colleges, trade ungodly decisions, and violence. schools, or careers, they will be asked to utilize technology in their The church deemed computers the gateway to sin because they work. By avoiding the so-called worldly and tempting computer, linked the user to the Internet. The twisting avenues of the web institutions like my Pentecostal church school are placing significant could not be trusted except to tempt the faithful at every turn. Of limitations on their students’ ability to succeed in a technologically course, computers could also be used to play computer games,

secularhumanism.org December 2010 / January 2011 Free Inquiry 39 many of which portrayed (or even celebrated) violence. These were of me. I had never seen such a machine in my entire eleven years! A definitely nothing a godly family wanted its children experiencing, flush crept up my cheeks as I realized I would have to ask someone even in the virtual realm. how to turn the thing on and use it. As noted, then, computers had no place in the small private While the computers of the students around me whirred to school associated with my church. If a family in the congregation life, my classmates chatted quietly. As the room settled into a quiet had school-age children, it was strongly suggested that its children hum of work, I fidgeted in my seat and wondered what I should do. attend the church’s private school. While some families chose to Finally, I leaned toward the girl seated next to me and whispered, send their children to public school, those families were frowned “How do I turn it on?” upon and, like television-owning families, became the subject of Her eyebrows rose to the top of her forehead. “You press the harsh gossip. power button, dummy,” she said before turning back to her own work. Into a Sinful World But I still didn’t know what to do. I agonized over whether When my parents divorced in the summer after my fifth-grade or not to bother the girl again. Finally, I tapped her shoulder and asked, “What does the power button look like?” She sighed and reached over me to press a large gray button on the bottom of the computer. Exhaling loudly, she drew back toward her own computer. “By avoiding the so-called worldly and I smiled my thanks at her. She rolled her eyes. (We tempting computer, institutions like my Pentecostal never made friends that school year.) Once the computer came to life, I still didn’t know what to do. I mashed some church school are placing significant limitations buttons and moved the small device attached to the com- on their students’ ability to succeed....” puter around, but it didn’t accomplish anything. The end of the period came quickly. I had never gotten past the opening screen. When my teacher asked me why I didn’t have an assignment for submission, I flushed with embarrassment and shrugged my shoul- year, my mother moved with my brother and me, far away from ders. In that moment, I was sure she had labeled me, normally a the reaches of our Pentecostal church. While my mother remained straight-A student, as a lazy degenerate. The bottom line was that a faithful Christian, she could no longer tolerate the severity and I didn’t know how to operate the computer, and I couldn’t type. rigor our old denomination required. Breaking with the church (to Tasked with my simple assignment, I had no idea how to use tech- say nothing of moving) meant breaking from its private school. My nology to create the final product. With shame, I accepted the very mother enrolled us in the local public school system. She did this first zero I had ever received in my young life. early in the summer, and as the summer waned I grew increasingly Eventually, my teachers realized I knew nothing about com- anxious about having to attend a “worldly” public school. I worried puters. The school provided me with a peer tutor who kindly that I would not fit in, that the other students would regard me as a walked me through basic functions. Over time, I learned that I foreigner, that no one would understand my shyness and resistance could teach myself how to operate many programs on my own by to wearing blue jeans, putting on makeup, and watching cartoons. just manipulating them. Still, no matter what I did, I was slower Thankfully, my childhood sensibilities were still elastic, and I on the computer than my classmates. This slowness in mastering adapted to my surroundings. I overcame the shock of seeing girls new technologies has never gone away. As a teacher and now as wearing pants and makeup and a television in every classroom and a returning student in a graduate program, I still struggle with my hearing curse words pouring from the mouths of almost every stu- feelings of frustration at this slowness. dent as though their use was an occasion for pride. After a week, I felt that I could settle into a comfortable routine at the school; that Learning from Related Experiences is, until one embarrassing day in the computer lab. While I was struggling to learn a new computer program for my During the second week of sixth grade, my Social Studies teach- current teaching position, I wondered if any of my fellow students er marched a class into the only computer lab on the sixth-grade at the Pentecostal private school had had similar experiences. I hallway. Our assignment for that day was to open Word and type got back in touch with as many former classmates as I could and up a small project she had given us the night before. I took my seat was able to conduct several interviews. Out of respect to those in front of the black screen and stared at the contraption in front individuals who spoke with me, I have changed their names; in

40 Free Inquiry December 2010 / January 2011 secularhumanism.org addition I withhold the name of the church because many whom I me not to use his name—he detailed the school’s reasoning for interviewed are still members of the congregation. continuing to deny students access to computers: “The school “Gareth” is still a member of the church, and he will enroll his understands that students are being asked to use technology in the daughter in the church’s kindergarten program in the fall of 2010. university system and the workforce. But as young people, their He said he is untroubled by the church’s refusal to allow students minds are still malleable and easily influenced. Once they become to use computers: “I’m not that worried about it. Granted, I had responsible adults and strong members of the church, they should to struggle a little bit when I went off to college to learn some of be able to better handle such temptation.” I asked him if the school the computer programs, but learning to use a computer wasn’t had ever considered providing students with a stripped-down com- something that I found impossible.” He continued, “I completed puter with no Internet access and only Microsoft Office programs, K–12 at the church’s school, and I made it through college and got since if students were expected to succeed in college or the working a decent job. I’m not saying that it wasn’t a struggle sometimes, world, they would need some knowledge of these programs. Surely but I’m not willing to allow my child to have access to some of the students could be spared temptation if not faced with the Internet! filth available on the Internet today.” His reply was shocking: “We have had several parents ask the same Gareth understands the possibility that his daughter might see question, and my response has always been the same. Even with something he does not approve of, online or off-line, without his such pared-down programs, children can utilize the programs to knowledge. “I know I can’t monitor her every minute. However, create inappropriate letters and pictures. If a parent wants his or by not having her exposed to [access to computers], it greatly lessens the chance of worldly influence. And when she does need to learn to use a computer, hopefully she will “The bottom line was that I didn’t know how be older and mature enough to make Godly to operate the computer, and I couldn’t type. . . . decisions.” With shame, I accepted the very first zero “Shauna,” also still a member of the church, was more critical of the school’s I had ever received in my young life.” stance toward technology: “As a college stu- dent, I constantly have to use the computer to write papers and to create presentations. I felt like an absolute idiot going to my roommate my freshman year and her child to be exposed to such things, then he or she can send the asking her, ‘Hey, how do I open a Word document?’” I couldn’t help child to a public school where the child will have to constantly face but nod my head in agreement as she continued, “I don’t understand worldly temptation.” With that statement, he ended the call with why the school still refuses to update their ideas about computers. polite coldness. If a child is going to succeed in the business and working world, she needs those skills.” While Shauna still attends the church and abides Warning for Parents by its other ideals—she dresses church-appropriately, and she does Of course, individuals have the absolute right to believe as they not own a television set—she did not hesitate to share her regret wish; however, in our increasingly plugged-in society, what draconi- concerning her own education. an Pentecostal parents and educators must grow to understand is “Corey” no longer attends the church but echoed many of that limiting our children’s access to technology—tools they will Shauna’s opinions. “By not giving children and young adults the inevitably need in order to succeed in secondary education and the tools they need to succeed, the church is really just holding these working world—limits their potential. While my experiences within kids back. My opinion is that children need to learn how to use one school are representative of only a small percentage of the technology when they are young; otherwise, the acquisition period student population, all students should have the opportunity for for learning how to adapt to such tasks will quickly pass by.” During success regardless of the size of the school they come from or per- our discussion, Corey drew on examples of his own struggles with centage of the population they occupy. adapting to new technology: “I honestly think that by not being exposed to computers at a young age, I learn more slowly than a person who did use computers as he or she grew up. Do I think it’s unfair? Absolutely! Unfortunately, the blame falls not only with the church but with the parents. I would hope that as adults, the parents of these children would see how much this could harm their technological development. I would hope that parents would Kristi DeMeester is currently pursuing her master’s in professional writing at want their children to have the same opportunities as other kids.” Kennesaw State University in Georgia. When I contacted the school’s current principal—who directed

secularhumanism.org December 2010 / January 2011 Free Inquiry 41 Leading Questions Glenn Beck: Icon of Irrationality a conversation with Alexander Zaitchik continued from p. 7

liberal progressives—and that includes sci- Apes and people didn’t even take notice. A Mooney: Jon Stewart has said of Beck: entists—are plotting with big corporations lot of people have lost a lot of money betting “Finally, a guy who says what people who to take away American liberties. on where the floor is in recent years. aren’t thinking are thinking.” Stephen King Zaitchik: It’s hard to find a point Mooney: Beck likes provoking the Left called him “Satan’s mentally challenged of entry with Beck’s conspiracy theories. with his outrageousness. In a sense, it younger brother.” They’re just kind of strung together with helps him be even more visible. Zaitchik: It’s worth noting that Beck spit and imagination. It’s not easy to take Zaitchik: Beck is extremely attuned to has collected these lines and put them on them down. The fact that so many people the importance of piquing the opposition the back of his book, Arguing with Idiots. are willing to accept these connect-the- He says, “See how much they hate me,” dot theories when in fact the dots don’t and it fuels his fan base. connect is a reflection of the times and the Mooney: What’s with all of his crying? standards for this kind of thing, which just Is middle America prone to fall for this bad keep mutating and falling by the day. Just acting? when you think the floor has been reached, Zaitchik: Apparently, yes. There are it keeps falling further. three elements here. One, Beck is genuinely Mooney: Perhaps the reason that he’s an emotional guy. I’ve talked with enough so successful right now is because our people who have worked with him over national discourse is so irrational. What is the years to know that that’s true. Two, Beck’s vision of America? he made a conscious decision to craft an Zaitchik: Beck’s view is probably pretty identity that was new in the market. He’s close to that of his main ideological spon- a positional marketing mastermind. When sors. Now that advertisers have fled, his he went into talk radio, he said, “OK. I’m sponsors on Fox are FreedomWorks and not going to be Rush Limbaugh; I’m not Americans for Prosperity, libertarian-lean- going to be Sean Hannity. What can I be?” ing think tanks that basically want to undo He became the emotional guy: the guy who the accomplishments of the last century wore it on his sleeve, who wasn’t afraid to in terms of social-welfare policies. If Beck bawl in the studio. Three, he is communi- were in charge, he would probably roll cating with a largely religiously conservative things back to 1920—and take him at his audience that sees tears in a completely word when he says he can’t be president different way. That’s especially true in the because there wouldn’t be any missiles left Mormon tradition, which has institution- after the first twenty minutes. “If Beck were in charge, alized crying. Every week, Mormons get Mooney: I understand that even at Fox, he would probably roll together for something called the “bearing despite his ratings, he’s been controversial. one’s testimony” ritual, which is where they Is it possible for Beck to go too far, or is things back to 1920—and get up and talk about their spiritual forms there no limit once you’re as big of a celeb- take him at his word of knowledge. They always tear up. You rity as Beck is? when he says he can’t see this all the way up the church hierarchy, Zaitchik: I think people would have even including the church president. The answered that question differently three be president because more stylized the crying, the more of a sign years ago, two years ago, one year ago, there wouldn’t be any of authority it is. six months ago. One of the strange things missiles left after the The crying dovetails perfectly with about our era is that the standards keep Beck’s need to separate himself from the mutating and changing. You think some- first twenty minutes.” pack and his own emotional needs and thing has gone too far, but it’s not even a —Alexander Zaitchik style. So it’s those three things combined blip on the radar. What was a controversy with the evangelical Protestant tradition a year ago now gets one day in the media that goes back to the famous evangelical and then it’s on to the next controversy. and getting them to hit back because then frauds over the years who have gone on Calling the president of the United States what was otherwise one show’s worth of television with tears in their eyes. a racist can lose you some sponsors, but publicity turns into five shows or even a then a year after that Beck compared the month’s worth of spats. He knows exactly president to a character from Planet of the what he’s doing.

42 Free Inquiry December 2010 / January 2011 secularhumanism.org Tom Rees Atheists Are Generous—They Just Don’t Give to Charity continued from p. 14

using other research strategies is so striking less charity and more a kind of social insur- wealth inequality. This effect also maps that researchers may be tempted to suspect ance. By way of contrast, blood donations onto overseas aid donations. According to moral hypocrisy in religious people.” involve making a sacrifice for an anonymous data gathered in 2005 by Foreign Policy That isn’t the full story, however. There stranger—an act that seems not to be stim- magazine, private individuals in the United is another consistent finding from research ulated by religion. States are the most generous in the world, into altruism, which is that when you put There is one last, and more contro- every day giving six cents to foreigners in people in a religious environment or feed versial, special feature about charity—one need compared with a meager one cent them subtle religious cues, their hones- recognized by Brooks himself. Argu­ably, given daily by each Dane. Factor in gov- ty and kindness does turn up a notch. charity is a means to redistribute wealth ernment donations, however, and it’s a (Bizarrely enough, religious cues are equally from the rich to the poor. Seen in this different story. The U.S. government gave effective for the religious and nonreligious, light, it is a competitor to but that’s another story.) This was illustrat- state welfare programs, ed in a real-life setting by Deepak Malhotra because money taken in at Harvard Business School, who teamed taxes can’t be given as up with an online charity auction house. charity. But charity is a For the period of the study, Malhotra and relatively ineffective tool “On an international scale, welfare programs the auction house sent an e-mail to the for redistributing wealth, are strongest in nations where atheists participants reminding them that every because it’s suscepti- are more common . . . The least religious cent they bid contributed to the worthy ble to free riders. These cause. The result? Both religious and non- are people who benefit countries also have the highest flow of religious bid exactly the same—except on from society’s efforts to wealth from the rich to the poor and Sunday, when the bids from the religious help the poor but don’t the smallest wealth inequality.” went up while those from the nonreligious give money themselves went down! A bizarre result but one that (after all, if you’re not provides a vital clue to understanding why Bill Gates, then your charitable giving—but not working with the donation will hardly be poor or giving blood—seems to be particu- missed). The free-rider larly favored by the religious. Demands for effect occurs because the utility of charita- fifteen cents on behalf of each citizen, but charitable donations are a regular feature ble giving (i.e., the benefit that accrues to the Danish government gave ninety cents of church attendance, and it may be that the donor from giving, compared with the per capita. Put private and public giving the church environment, rather than any benefit that would accrue from keeping the together, and Denmark—one of the least inherent generosity, drives the response to money) is low. For the religious, this is not so religious countries in the world—is clearly such appeals. important. For them, the utility of charitable the far more generous nation. Using charitable giving to compare the giving is in­creased because they believe that Do the nonreligious give less to charity generosity of the religious and nonreligious they will be rewarded (either now or in the than the religious? Well, the data are a bit is problematic for other reasons. Consider hereafter) by their god. For atheists, howev- muddy, but on the balance of probabilities the fact that a large part of religious char- er, the free-rider effect dramatically changes they should, I think, be found guilty as ity goes, to a large extent, straight into the optimal balance between charity and charged. But does this mean that the reli- the pockets of co-religionists. According state-mediated support for the poor. gious are more generous than atheists? to Daniel Chen, an economist at Duke There’s good evidence that this is the Here the data are clear. The resounding University,­ some 90 percent of the money case. Chen found that support for welfare answer is no! that Mormons give to charity goes to other was inversely related to religious “in-group” Mormons, while 80 percent of evangelical giving. On an international scale, welfare Christian charity goes to other evangelical programs are strongest in nations where Christians. At the other end of the scale are atheists are more common. Since state wel- Catholics (at 50 percent), but even Jews, fare dwarfs charitable giving, even in coun- who are the least discriminating in their tries with small welfare states such as the charity, reserve 40 percent of it for their United States, the result is fellow Jews. Chen found that this roughly that the least religious coun- Tom Rees is a medical writer and lifelong humanist. His blog, mirrors the differing expectations of support tries also have the highest Epiphenom, covers the latest research into the psychology and that people expect from their co-religionists flow of wealth from the rich social science of religion and nonbelief. if they are ill. Giving money in these cases is to the poor and the smallest

secularhumanism.org December 2010 / January 2011 Free Inquiry 43 Tom Flynn Speaking of Inconvenient Truths . . . continued from p. 8

Cable viewers can choose among reality multiple pregnancy, “blessing” them with and slack-jawed astonishment that a thir- series set in ob-gyn wards and fertility clinics a clutch of six.* Working our way up ty-something mom (and Assemblies of God or shows devoted to problem deliveries and the fertility ladder, we come next to the churchgoer) who bore eight children can unorthodox birthing styles—there’s even recently (pardon the pun) reconceived Kate look so good in skimpy sportswear. And one wholly focused on women who didn’t Plus Eight, whose dual foci seem to be we mustn’t overlook Nineteen Kids and know they were pregnant until the onset of a conviction that huge broods are cool Counting (formerly titled Eighteen Kids and labor. (If you haven’t watched cable lately Counting, and before that Seventeen Kids *Two Good to Be True Department: two and think I’m kidding, it’s creatively titled I surprising facts about Quints by Surprise and Counting—say what you will about Didn’t Know I Was Pregnant. Grateful view- that I couldn’t quite shoehorn into the main them, this show’s producers can count). ers can thank Discovery Health and TLC for text: (1) The series spun off from a special This is the saga of the Duggars, a conser- bringing it to the screen.) on Discovery Health whose original title was vative Christian couple who soured on birth Worst of all, perhaps, is TLC’s trio of too prudent to last long: Too Many Babies? control and opted to let God decide how The special’s title was sanitized to Quintuplet reality shows lionizing so-called mega- Surprise when re-aired on TLC. (2) The pro- many children they should have. Perhaps families. Quints by Surprise celebrates a duction company that delivers episodes of Kate Gosselin and her much-despised Bap­tist couple that refused selective reduc- Quints by Surprise to TLC is called—I’m not ex-husband could have learned from the tion after fertility treatments resulted in a making this up—Megalomedia. example of Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar,

Shadia B. Drury Is Religion Like Sex? continued from p. 12

Whether Hitler was a true believer or a its former glory, the Church did everything direction toward which human history is cynical manipulator of faith is irrelevant. He in its power to legitimize and support the moving. That plan belongs to God, history, presented his regime as the antidote to the regime. In other words, the Church sold or nature. godless regime of the Soviets. The church- its soul to the devil for money and power. 2. True believers (in God, history, or es regarded him as a defender of religion The agreement, made in 1929 and known nature) are certain that the plan in­volves a against the menace of Com­munism. It was as the Lateran Accords, has never been wondrous transfiguration of the world. The only natural for them to be on his side. revoked—a­ shameful testament to the sub- world as we know it will be destroyed and Pope Pius XII denounced the Communists servience of the international community to replaced by a new form of existence. but not Hitler; after all, by taking revenge the most egregious of religious organiza- 3. Human beings can and should play on the deicides (i.e., the killers of Christ), tions. In short, the militant secularism that an active role in the realization of the grand Hitler was doing God’s work. For hundreds Gray and Eagleton attribute to the twentieth plan. of years, Europeans had been accustomed century is a fiction. In its religious as well as its secular to regarding the Jewish people as an The second argument made by Gray manifestations, this apocalyptic vision poses accursed race. For hundreds of years, the and Eagleton is the philosophical claim that serious danger to humanity because it is not Catholic Church had isolated the Jews the repression of religion causes regimes merely a denunciation of particular injustices­ in ghettos, forced them to wear special to turn into perverse versions of religion. but a radical rejection of the world. clothing, declared their property ill-gotten, Supposedly, they banish God only to replace Contrary to Gray and Eagleton, the confiscated their wealth, kidnapped their him with history (the Communists)­ or nature totalitarian regimes of the twentieth cen- children, tortured them in the dungeons (the Nazis). These ersatz religions are pur- tury were not the pathological products of the Inquisition, and imposed a host of portedly more vicious than their genuine of the repression of Christianity. The latter monetary fines and legal prohibitions on counterparts. emerged full-blown in all its apocalyp- their activities—this is why the Nazis did In my view, neither theism nor atheism tic perversity. The ancient Romans were not have to be too inventive. Far from automatically turns people into killers or ter- understandably shocked by the relish with repressing religion, the Nazis used it to rorists. People who strive to be honest, kind, which the early Christians anticipated the their advantage. and generous, to please God (theists) or to destruction of the world by fire; they were In Italy, the Fascists did the same thing. please themselves and their fellow human horrified when Christian fanatics ignited They made an agreement with the Catholic beings (atheists) are not a threat to anyone. gargantuan fires to facilitate the final con- Church: in exchange for its support and 105 What makes people a threat to public order flagration. Christianity was outlawed in million dollars, they would give the pope and decency are the following three noxious Rome because of its perversity—it was a absolute sovereign jurisdiction over the 108 beliefs that Communism and Nazism inherit- menace to peace, order, and security. acres of land that would comprise Vatican ed from Christianity: The trouble with the claim that all the City. Thrilled to be restored to a facsimile of 1. There is a knowable plan, goal, or horrors of the twentieth century are an

44 Free Inquiry December 2010 / January 2011 secularhumanism.org

who apparently love each other very much. viduals and as a species we must learn terrorism would make Discovery­ Channel Inconvenient Truth Number Two is pretty to live within our means—and the envi- and its sister networks refocus on programs simple. Far too much of today’s basic-cable ronment’s. If you’re a responsible green that stump for environmental responsibility. programming is in thrall to a vapid natal- who wants to work toward the brightest But perhaps condemnation by more respon- ism that, all too often, goes hand-in-hand possible human future, TLC and other cable sible individuals, including secular humanists, with conservative Christianity.­ If it’s true that channels that cheerlead for runaway child- can persuade these networks to quit encour- overpopulation underlies our most pressing birth are your enemy. That doesn’t justify aging us to kill ourselves off faster. environmental crises, programming that pro- taking hostages—nothing does, as if I need pagandizes for the lie that big families are to say that. But TLC et al. surely merit fierce great and colossal families are better lures us criticism for creating, airing, and ceaseless- down the path toward suicide as a species. ly rerunning programs whose agenda is, Not being a deep ecologist, I deplore that. It let’s not mince words, pro- Tom Flynn is editor of Free Inquiry, executive director of the occurs to me that one needn’t be as troubled foundly dangerous to human Council for Secular Humanism, and editor of The New Encyclo­ as James Lee in order to sense something flourishing. pedia of Unbelief (Pro­metheus Books, 2007). He is also director horribly, grotesquely wrong here. James Lee was mad to of the Robert Green Ingersoll Birthplace Museum in Dresden, Humanity is not a cancer, but as indi- dream that his act of solo New York.

example of the “return of the repressed” is is not the case that religion gets nasty when that it fails to explain why religion wreaks so it is repressed. The truth is that religion is not much havoc even when it is dominant, as it like sex. The latter is satisfied with liberty, but was in the Middle Ages and during the religion seeks dominance. European wars of religion in the sixteenth Shadia Drury is Canada Research Chair in Social Justice at the and seventeenth centuries. In our time, reli- University of Regina in Canada. Among her recent books are gion is not repressed in America, Israel, or Terror and Civilization: Christianity, Politics, and the Western the Islamic world, yet it plays a pernicious Psyche (2004) and Aquinas and Modernity: The Lost Promise role in the politics of these antagonists. So, it of Natural Law (2008).

Katrina Voss Eat Tofu, Do Science continued from p. 13 when no other alternatives are available. Of course, even when intelligent, sci- Ideally, in a compassionate yet pro-sci- But that raises an interesting question: ence-friendly people accept it as their ence future world, nonhuman animals would Are there really no other alternatives? One duty to participate in research, scientists be neither eaten nor used in research.­ So in obvious alternative comes to mind that often find their hands tied in designing the meantime, let me suggest an improve- could greatly reduce the need for animal protocols. Many researchers agree that ment to a popular bumper sticker: “Love experimentation. Whenever possible, in­ while animal-subjects approval is tedious, animals; don’t eat them. And love scientists; stead of relying on small furry rodents, some Internal Review Boards (IRBs) have offer yourself to research.” And go ahead, why not experiment on ourselves, the very made human-subjects approval a horror of slap that bumper sticker on a gas-guzzling organisms who most often enjoy the bene- paperwork and hoop-jumping. Originally, Hummer.­ After all, you’d still be doing the fits of such research? True, humans are, in IRBs were formed to protect human rights planet more good than those meat-eating many ways, less perfect subjects for some (inspired by the Nuremberg Code and the Prius drivers. kinds of research. Our life cycles are longer appalling abuses of Nazi medical re­search). than those of rats, whose rapid-fire repro- But in practice, many IRBs are more about duction offers a quicker glimpse into genes, bureaucratic butt-covering. If development, and drug response. On the our goal is to save human Katrina Voss worked for ten years as a bilingual broadcast meteo- other hand, humans are better subjects for and nonhuman animals from rologist at the Weather Channel Latin America and AccuWeather. other kinds of studies, for example, clinical the abuse of scientists, we She is now a science and research writer at Penn State’s Eberly trials that measure decades-long responses might begin by saving scien- College of Science. to environmental factors. tists from the abuse of IRBs.

secularhumanism.org December 2010 / January 2011 Free Inquiry 45 Juhem Navarro-Rivera Media Stereotypes and the Invisible Latino ‘Nones’ continued from p. 15 migration positions against their personal Instead, they study, work, and live their on liberal principles, including the abo- religious and social conservatism—even own lives. As such, the media ignores them lition of slavery. After the Spanish Civil though there is no evidence that Latino because they are not exotic or interesting. War (1936–39), won by the Fascists, a evangelicals are significant players in the Yet, Latino Nones are not only invisible in liberal Spanish Republic in Exile settled in Republican Party coalition. their own country and its mainstream media; Mexico City. There is evidence, however, that Nones they are also invisible within their own com- This tradition extends to the present are affecting Latinos’ political leanings. ARIS munity. day—some of the most important secular 2008 shows that Latino Nones are five The reason is that for many Latinos, victories in the world have occurred recently times more likely to prefer the Democratic a self-image as a deeply religious group in Latin America. Uruguay is one of the most Party over the Republican Party and have (regardless of religion, though overwhelm- secular nations on Earth. Forty percent of become more pro-Demo­cratic over time. ingly Christian) is seen as an important Uruguayans claimed to have no religion in This may explain why Latinos have leaned part of their identity. I realized this while a 2006 population survey, including 17 per- more Democratic in recent elections: the teaching courses in Latino studies at the cent who identified as atheist or agnostic. fastest-growing segment of the Latino pop- college level. I would start the semester Argentina became the first country in Latin ulation is becoming more pro-Democratic. brainstorming with my (mostly Latino) stu- America to approve marriage equality for its Why this code of silence about a large dents about what it means to be a Latino. gay and lesbian citizens. group of Latinos that is becoming increas- Some of the first responses were “faith,” Mexico City, meanwhile, has had its ingly influential? I have two hy­potheses. “religion,” or some variant. own record of enacting secular policies. The first explains this group’s lack of visibil- Religious authority figures are featured It became the first major city to approve ity in the American mainstream media. The prominently in Latino media as leaders in same-sex marriage and adoption rights for second addresses the invisibility of Latino debates. Until recently, a popular Spanish gay and lesbian citizens. These decisions Nones in Latino media. television talk show was hosted by Padre were upheld by Mexico’s Supreme Court, Religious Latinos are prominently fea- Alberto Cutie, a Catholic priest who later which ruled that same-sex marriages per- tured in the American media thanks to their left the clergy in disgrace after it was formed in Mexico City must be recognized visibility. It is easy to photograph Catholic discovered he was having an affair, thus by Mexico’s other thirty-one states. Latinos carrying saint or Virgin Mary images violating his celibacy vows. And yet, the rapid growth of secularism while participating in a procession. Evan­ Religious imagery has often been used among Latinos in the United States contin- gelical Latinos tend to be very loud and by Latinos. Cesar Chavez rallied farm work­ ues to be ignored. good at gathering attention. Even Muslim ers using the Virgin of Guadalupe as a sym- Latino Nones have to live in a dual Latinos are visible thanks to the way they bol. More recently, the Virgin of Guadalupe world without being acknowledged in dress (which explains the focus on Latina has been used in protests against Arizona’s either one. In the mainstream world, Latino Muslims). To find religious Latinos it is only anti-immigration law. This imagery is readily Nones do not pass the “exoticism” test; necessary to go to a place of worship where picked up by mainstream as well as Latino they are not “Latin” enough. In the Latino the main language is Spanish, then report media and leads to the impression that all world, Nones defy the self-image of the about the increasing number of Spanish- Latinos are religious when in reality they are whole group; there, too, they are not speaking churches and how Latinos, pre- not. Latino Nones are invisible in the Latino “Latin” enough. In both cases, an import- sumably unable to adapt to life in the United community because acknowledging their ant part of the Latino narrative has to do States, crowd these places in search for existence means acknowledging that a big with paying lip service to the supernatural, identity, community, and some help from part of Latino identity is unnecessary. something Latino Nones are less willing to the Big Guy upstairs. This image of Latinos as a people with a do. Yet, little by little, Latino Nones—like In contrast, though Latino Nones (in­clud- rich religious history betrays the rich history the rest of American Nones—are shaping ing atheists and/or agnostics) are all around of secularism in Spain and its former Amer­ America and their own communities’ us, they are hard to find. Latino Nones are ican colonies. Liberal governments came and future. Will anyone notice? less likely to attend religious services, more went in Spain throughout the nineteenth likely to have graduated from college, and century. That century’s civil wars in Spain more likely to speak English. Latino Nones, and the Latin American wars of indepen- especially atheists and agnostics, are invis- dence were greatly influenced ible in American society because they do by the secular American and Juhem Navarro-Rivera is a research fellow at the Institute for the not fit the stereotype of the poorly educat- French revolutions. Mexico’s Study of Secularism in Society and Culture and a PhD candidate ed, Spanish-speaking religious fanatic. The 1857 and 1917 constitutions in political science at the University of Connecticut, where he normalcy of Latino Nones is their greatest included­ articles separating also works as adjunct instructor in the Puerto Rican and Latino liability and the driving force of their invis- church and state. The 1868 Studies Institute. His research interests include religion and pol- ibility. They don’t have crucifixes hanging uprising against Spanish rule itics, Latino public opinion, and political representation. from their necks or Bibles under their arms. in Puerto Rico was based

46 Free Inquiry December 2010 / January 2011 secularhumanism.org Church-State Update

Education ‘Reform’ Edd Doerr

Education “reform,” whatever that might the amount of money spent on a student’s closing “ineffective” ones. It scores lavish- mean, is on the front burner. George W. education affects the quality of his or her ing excessive attention on charter schools: Bush’s No Child Left Behind (NCLB) plan has education. As for evaluating teachers, 60 “There is no evidence that charter opera- led to a frenzy of testing that has narrowed percent favored this method as a means tors are systematically more effective in cre- and weakened curricula, led to an epidemic to helping teachers improve, while only ating higher student outcomes nationwide.” of “teaching to the test,” and stimulated the 26 percent said it should be used to doc- The statement adds that “Charters enroll proliferation of charter schools, which have ument ineffectiveness “that will lead to 54 percent fewer English Language Learner on balance done little or nothing to “reform” dismissal.” By 71 percent to 27 percent, (ELL) students, 43 percent fewer special schooling. President Barack Obama’s Race respondents­ have “trust and confidence” in education students, and 37 percent fewer to the Top is regarded by many educators as public-school teachers and by 67 percent to free and reduced price lunch students than too closely akin to Bush’s NCLB. 30 percent would approve of having their high-minority public school districts.” In July 2010, eight major civil-rights children enter the teaching profession. By The important statement goes on to rec- organizations (including the National Asso­­ 78 percent to 21 percent, public-school par- ommend the institutionalization of parent ciation for the Advancement of Colored ents considered the home a more important and family engagement in decisions regard- People and the Urban League) issued a factor than school “in determining whether ing their children, the creation of safe and little-noticed seventeen-page statement students learn in school.” educationally sound learning environments titled “Framework for Providing All Stu­ The 2010 PDK/Gallup survey, for once, for all students, the reduction of exclusion- dents an Opportunity to Learn Through did not contain a question about school ary discipline practices that disproportion- Reauthorization of the Ele­mentary and vouchers. Perhaps such a query is no ately affect minorities, and efforts to reduce Secondary Education Act.” Before further longer needed. After all, in over two dozen poverty and racial isolation. comment, let’s look at the latest annual statewide referenda from coast to coast Perhaps the leading advocate of real- poll of public opinion, the forty-second by over the past forty years, voters have reject- ly progressive reform is educator Diane Phi Delta Kappa (PDK), the professional ed vouchers or their variants by an average Ravitch, whose 2010 book, The Death and educators’ organization, and the Gallup margin of 2 to 1. But don’t write vouchers Life of the Great American School System: organization. The poll, released in August, off yet. Harvard voucher fanatic and pub- How Testing and Choice Are Undermining was based on more than one thousand lic-school hater Paul Peterson is still on the Education, should be must-reading for all interviews and consists of forty questions. bandwagon, urging a “stealth” strategy who care about the future of education. A summary of the results: or “below the surface” strategy, like “an Humanists such as John Dewey have A combined A and B grading for Everglades alligator” to gradually replace long been at the forefront of efforts to Obama’s support for public schools de­clined on-site schools with computer technology im­prove education for all kids and defend from 45 percent in 2009 to 34 percent in for “virtual education.” And Newt Gingrich, church-state separation, which is crucial 2010. Disapproval of Bush’s NCLB outpaced who has either gone totally wacko or is pre- to education and democracy. We have a approval­ by 47 percent to 29 percent. tending to, is rebranding vouchers as “K-12 lot of work to do, in partnership with men Asked to assign a letter grade (A through Pell Grants.” Newt also favors school prayer, and women of goodwill across the spec- F) to public schools, a mere 18 percent gave teacher proselytizing, and home schooling, a trum. an A or B to schools nationwide, but 49 favorite gimmick of the religious Right. percent gave an A or B to schools in their Back to the civil rights organization’s community, while 77 percent gave an A or report.­ It criticizes the Race to the Top B to the public school attended by their old- strategy of President Obama est child. What this Lake Wobegon­ effect and Ed­ucation Secretary­ Arne Edd Doerr, president and CEO of Americans for Religious Liberty seems to mean is that people rate highly the Duncan­ as putting competi- and a past president of the American Humanist Association, is schools they know the most about while tion for federal grants ahead the author of more than five thousand published books, sections accepting conservative media’s bad-mouth- of focusing aid on all needy of books, articles, columns, book and film re­views, translations, ing of schools elsewhere. schools and children. It advo- letters, short stories, and poems. He has made more than two Contrary to anti-tax propaganda, 67 cates fixing neighborhood thousand speeches and radio and television appearances. percent of poll respondents believe that schools rather than simply

secularhumanism.org December 2010 / January 2011 Free Inquiry 47 Great Minds

An Epicurean Alternative to Religion Priscilla Sakezles

hilosophy and science were in­vent- sure as the primary good, but he was ed in ancient Greece by people uncor- a peculiar sort of hedonist. He defined Prupted by the monotheism that has pleasure as the absence of pain, making shaped our culture. With the exception pleasure very easy to achieve and maintain. of Plato, Greeks tended to be humanists, But he was not a monkish ascetic, with- naturalists, and religious skeptics. Though drawing from life. Rather, he stressed that many of their scientific theories are wrong, we should rationally evaluate our desires there is a wealth of wisdom to be gained to distinguish the “natural” desires that from studying their views on how to live should be satisfied for our physical and a good and rational human life. Epicurus psychological flourishing from the “vain” (341–270 b.c.e.) is a particularly rich source desires that we feel only as the result of of inspiration for people wondering how to social pressure. Happiness is attained by live happily without religious superstition. satisfying the former desires and learning The ancient pedigree of his philosophy to transcend the latter. should reassure contemporary humanists Prominent among the natural desires that they are engaged in a perennial battle are the necessary conditions for survival against tradition and ignorance, not a new such as food, drink, and shelter as well one. as essential psychological needs such as Epicurus considered the ultimate goal friendship and community. In fact, the of human life to be happiness, which he value of friendship was stressed more conceived of as a state he called “undis- often by Epicurus than any other good. A key element of Epicurean happiness consisted of liv- ing in close communion “I sometimes contemplate how histo- with like-minded friends, maximize one’s happiness in the long run. ry might have progressed without the enjoying “a quiet private When he evaluated the various sources life withdrawn from the of mental disturbance, Epicurus thought monotheism that crushed ancient science multitude” (Principal Doc­ that the most powerful and debilitating and philosophy. . . . If Epicureanism had trines 14; Gaskin, p. 7).* disturbance is our fear of death. Incapable been more staunchly promoted, enough The “vain” desires are of facing extinction, most people want to so to challenge the growing power of the primarily for various forms believe that death is not the end but only of wealth, status, and power a transition to a “better place.” Religion Church, imagine how different the follow- that, Epicurus thought, we attempts­ to assure us that we have an ing centuries might have been.” really do not need, are immortal­ soul that will go to heaven to usually unhealthy, and not spend eternity with our loved ones, with worth the price of their God watching over us (if we believe and do attainment. As a hedonist, what that religion demands of us). Epicurus believed all plea- turbedness” or tranquility. This form of Epicurus, on the other hand, insisted sures to be good and all pains to be bad, happiness consists of simply having a body that we use reason and empirical evidence but he was careful to point out that this free of pain and a mind free of disturbance to find and face the truth. Having revived does not mean that all pleasures are to be to the greatest degree possible, given the Democritus’s atomic theory, Epicurus was chosen and all pains avoided. One must human condition. It is attained with the a materialist, holding that everything that always make a rational calculation of the help of philosophy, not religion. He first exists, including the human mind and soul, overall consequences of one’s actions and identified the primary sources of distur- is made of “atoms,” the indivisible primary choose the best option—the one that will bance and then showed how a philosoph- *Quotations are from John Gaskin, ed., The particles of matter. At death, all the atoms ical understanding of the facts of nature Epicurean Philosophers (London: Orion Pub­ making up the person (blood, skin, bone, can eliminate them. lishing Group, 1995), which includes an ex­ mind, soul, etc.) scatter. Some of these cellent introduction. Epicurus was a hedonist, seeing plea- atoms may be recycled into something

48 Free Inquiry December 2010 / January 2011 secularhumanism.org else; some may just drift off. An individual’s quility that we should mimic. It is possible to create and enforce values. existence and consciousness is the prod- that Epicurus feigned belief in these gods Epicurus’s philosophy was popular and uct of the conjunction of soul and body, in order to escape the sort of censure suf- fairly widespread for centuries, through so that a disembodied soul is impossible. fered by Anaxagoras and Socrates. At any the second century c.e. The Epicureans’ Therefore, death is literally nothing: we rate, he eliminated a major source of fear characteristic self-isolation and withdrawal simply cease to exist. “Death is nothing to among his fellow citizens. from society and politics probably made us. While we are, death is not; when death With no God to monitor our behavior their lives more peaceful, but it did not is come, we are not” (Letter to Menoeceus; and no afterlife in which we can be pun- help sustain the movement. During the Gaskin, p. 43). ished for our transgressions, what force medieval period, Epicurus was considered Epicurus believed that it is irrational to will keep the Epicurean in line? After all, the “Antichrist of Sensuality” (Gaskin xlix) ruin the precious life we have by fretting many people believe that religion is a nec- and was reviled and misrepresented by over its end. In 50 b.c.e., Epicurus’s most essary condition for morality and ethical church leaders. famous advocate, Lucretius, wrote his epic behavior, so that the irreligious are by defi- I sometimes contemplate how history poem On the Nature of the Universe to nition immoral. It is quite the contrary for might have progressed without the mono­ explain Epicurean philosophy to a Roman Epicurus. When we have the appropriate theism that crushed ancient science and audience, and its Book III provides argu- and natural desires and ment after argument for this position. have transcended vain For instance, to show the irrationality of desires, we will be living a “Epicurus was a hedonist, seeing pleasure desiring eternal life, Lucretius pointed out simple life in communion as the primary good, but he was a peculiar that we do not fret over our nonexistence with our friends. before we were born, so why should There are no partic- sort of hedonist. He . . . stressed that we we dread nonexistence after death? He ular rules, no Ten Com­ should rationally evaluate our desires to argued that eternal existence would be mandments, that an Epi­ distinguish the ‘natural’ desires that should boring and would destroy the value of the curean must follow to be finite life we do have. Epicurus continually good. Rather, he or she be satisfied for our physical and stressed that we are a natural part of the uses reason to calculate in psychological flourishing from the ‘vain’ natural world, and happiness can only be each case what should be desires that we feel only achieved by accepting this reality. Modern done to be consistent with materialists may hold different scientific Epicurean values, always as the result of social pressure.” evidence for our materialism, but we can mindful of the conse- embrace Epicurus’s philosophical concep- quences. Epicurus recom- tion of what death is and what our attitude mends, “every desire must be confronted philosophy. As it happened, the medieval toward it should be. with this question: what will happen to me, period truly was a dark age from which we In Epicurus’s time, fear of the gods was if the object of my desire is accomplished are still struggling to emerge. The Church is another major source of disturbance be­ and what if it is not?” (Vatican Sayings LXXI; still powerful and still attempts­ to squash cause most people believed that the myths Gaskin, p. 53). rationality and misrepresent science. If about jealous and vengeful gods were Most immoral acts are done to achieve Epicureanism had been more staunchly pro- really true. Strangely, Epicurus affirmed wealth, status, or power, which mean moted, enough so to challenge the growing the existence of gods for fallacious empir- nothing to the Epicurean. A true Epicurean power of the Church, imagine how different ical reasons: everyone has ideas of gods; would always consider not only the cost of the following centuries might have been. perceptions and ideas come from really being caught in an immoral act but also the Although there is much we can adopt from existing things; therefore, gods exist. But cost of worrying about being caught: “Let Epi­curus’s philosophy, contemporary these gods were part of the material world, nothing be done in your life, which will humanists must resist the Epicurean urge to composed of atoms like everything else, liv- cause you fear if it becomes known to your withdraw from society for the sake of per- ing a perfectly happy and tranquil existence neighbor” (Vatican Sayings LXX, Gaskin, p. sonal tranquility. We have a responsibility to in another part of the cosmos. They did 53). Whatever pleasure might be achieved future generations to free them from the not create the world, had no concern for by such means is not worth the price of the chains of religion. We can only do this humans, and did not interfere in human life attendant worry. My father never heard of through education, which is not always or natural events. Epicurus was particularly Epicurus, but he was being Epicurean when tranquil. insistent that the gods had nothing to do he told me, as a child, to behave in such a with heavenly phenomena such as eclipses, way that I would never be ashamed if other solstices, or the movements of the heaven- people discovered what I was doing. This is ly bodies. Epicurus was a polytheist whose a very useful moral principle. In Epicurus we gods were ab­solutely irrelevant to human find a rational and humanistic life. The only possible role they served in ethical theory with no need of Priscilla Sakezles is professor and chair of the Department of his philosophy was as a paradigm of tran- imaginary supernatural beings Philosophy at the University of Akron.

secularhumanism.org December 2010 / January 2011 Free Inquiry 49 Living Without Religion

Why Most People Believe in the Supernatural Stephen Uhl

n September 2005, Rita, a huge Cate­ easily concludes: “I wished for it, therefore hypnosis they see more clearly their own gory 5 hurricane, was bearing down on it happened.” Post hoc, ergo propter hoc potential and their own ability to achieve ITexas’s Gulf shores. The desperately fright- (after the act, therefore because of the act) their goals. After the hypnotized patients ened Texas governor ordered over a million is only sometimes true. There is no reliable realized the magnitude of their own internal people to make their exodus inland. After connection between the wishful thinking power, they rapidly progressed toward men- issuing historically dire warnings to these and the outcome, even though a strong tal health and independence. For example, anxious citizens, the good governor told connection is frequently perceived by the the patient now moves from the attitude of them to “say a prayer for Texas.” wisher. The same holds for prayer. “I cannot quit smoking” to the conviction One of our oldest defense mechan­isms, that “I can quit smoking.” wishful thinking, remains in common use Wishful Thinking, Prayer, and Hypnosis Prayer that is effective can appropriate- today. This is the belief that wishing can Prayer is commonly an act of wishful ly be dubbed “self-hypnosis.” It helps the somehow change reality or make things thinking. And because prayer is frequent- praying person relax and focus his or her happen. A simple dictionary definition of ly more hypnogenic than simple wishful attention and wishes. In so doing, the con- wishful thinking is “the attribution of real- thinking, prayer can take on an added level centrating, praying person self-hypnotizes ity to what one wishes to be true and the of effectiveness. When I say that prayer and becomes convinced that his or her tenuous justification of what one wants to works sometimes, I really mean it. Prayer goal is attainable. Buoyed by the resulting believe.” Of course, wishes do sometimes often works for the wishing believer who increase in confidence, the hopeful praying become reality for two reasons: first, when is doing the praying. Reliable objective subject sometimes goes on to achieve the we are directly or personally responsible for research has clearly shown that prayers desired goal. Thus the praying subject is offered by others for someone’s successful precisely as the hypnotized sub- improvement without that person’s ject is successful: each realizes and uses a knowledge have no effect on that personal power beyond what he or she had “. . . Our wishes are fulfilled person. However, when believers previously thought possible. pray on a variety of topics, their Even though prayer does not work intermittently, but intermittent wishes are more likely to come true because of a higher power’s power, it is reinforcement is the strongest kind than if they had not prayed. This is easy to see how it strengthens the faith of of psychological reinforcement.” because of the hypnotic character the believer in wishful thinking. Jesus Christ of prayer. may have realized this when he commanded In my psychological practice, his followers not to pray publicly like the I often used hypnosis, which is hypocrites but secretly or privately (Mat­ similar to modern meditation, to thew 6:5–6). Private prayer is much more the wished-for result, we likely take at least help my patients achieve their goals. I effective (for nonpolitical purposes) than some steps to achieve it; likewise, even frequently dubbed hypnosis “meditation public prayer, because personal concentra- when we are not directly responsible for in high gear.” It is a most powerful and tion and meditative insights­ are much more the wished-for results, good things can and effective tool; it helps a person relax deep- likely in private than in public. do happen. For example, if we are wound- ly, concentrate, and access his or her own Understand how the self-hypnosis ed or sick, Mother Nature is so bountiful personal powers. In fact, hundreds of my of prayer is sometimes so effective for that we often heal or get well, though we clients amazed themselves when they quit the praying believers. Their achievement did nothing to bring about that good result smoking, generally without withdrawal beyond­ what they had thought themselves other than wish for it. effects, after only one session of individual capable of positively reinforces their act of Both scenarios reinforce our belief in hypnosis. self-hypnotic praying. This greater-than-ex- the power of wishing; our wishes are Hypnotized or meditating persons are pected personal achievement is intermit- fulfilled intermittently, but intermittent often surprised at their newly discovered tent, so it strongly reinforces the faith of the reinforcement is the strongest kind of strength and capabilities. Before being hyp- praying persons. Therefore, they become psychological reinforcement. This princi- notized, they considered themselves inca­ - more convinced of the power of prayer ple helps explain why wishful thinking is pable of doing what they wanted or achiev- while thinking that prayer gets its power so common. The associative thinker very ing what they needed for happiness; after from God rather than from within them-

50 Free Inquiry December 2010 / January 2011 secularhumanism.org selves. They prayed to their god; they got some desired effect at times. Most individ- becomes obvious here is not a power greater-than-expected results. Therefore,­ uals are somewhat swayed by what the above nature; it is the self-hypnotically they attribute the results to God’s help; crowd seems to believe. The listening induced power of increased conviction in post hoc, ergo propter hoc. crowd is helped toward hypnosis by the individuals who earlier had been uncon- Furthermore, the more convinced the repetitions or the soothing or authoritative vinced of their power. This power is so great praying persons become of the power of voice of the preacher or politician. This that it may be directed to repair a communi- prayer, the more proficient they become believing crowd, led in prayer by an articu- ty, start a violent revolution, or increase at hypnotizing themselves, so the more late leader, grows in unity until all or most contributions to or votes for all kinds of effective each one’s self-hypnotic prayer in the crowd say “Amen” to the same causes. becomes.­ Now you can understand how thing. As the preacher or group leader it is feasible for a person who does not employs hypnotic power, even unwittingly, under-stand hypnosis to attribute a super- he or she can readily strengthen the natural power to prayer. Such reinforce- crowd’s self-reinforcing belief ment is a strong argument for millions and help it reach some degree Stephen Uhl was predestined by his mother to become a (billions?) to believe in a higher power. For of mass hypnosis—even mass priest. Ten years into the priesthood, this former believer’s the person who understands hypnosis, how- hysteria. (Winston Churchill, doubts caused his divorce from the priesthood and the Church. ever, prayer works not because some god Adolf Hitler, Franklin D. On earning a PhD in psychology, Uhl enjoyed a thriving private changed his/her eternally changeless divine Roosevelt, and many popular psychology practice until retirement. He is the author of Out mind but because the self-hypnotizing sub- evangelical preachers have of God’s Closet: This Priest Psychologist Chooses Friendly ject changed his or her own mind, leading been masterful crafters of the Atheism (Golden Rule Publishers, 2010), from which this to increased personal effectiveness. convictions of crowds.) The article is excerpted. Even public prayer does actually have power (for good or ill) that

Religion in History Atheists, Anti-atheists, and Nazis—Once Again Peter W. Sperlich

he question of the religious or anti- resigned as the Roman Catholic bishop of In any case, self-identified agnostics and religious mind-set of the National Augsburg, Germany.* In his 2009 Easter atheists comprise a mere 23 percent of con- TSocialists has received frequent atten- sermon, Mixa declared: “During the past temporary Germans. tion. Not long ago, for example, Free Inquiry century, the inhumanity of practiced athe- What produces such nonsense? One devoted significant space to this question, ism has been demonstrated most cruelly by source may be self-interest and expedi- particularly to the purported atheism of the godless regimes of Nazism and commu- ence. The equation Nazism = atheism is Hitler and the other Nazi leaders (Gregory nism, with their penal camps, secret police, self-serving for religion in general and for S. Paul, “The Great Scandal: Christianity in and mass murders.” Bishop Mixa further German churches in particular. By identify- the Rise of the Nazis,” October/November asserted that Christians and the church had ing Nazism with atheism, religious believers 2003 and December 2003/January 2004). suffered special persecution under these gain two comforting nostrums: (1) atheists The equation Nazism = atheism has gained regimes. He also warned against the rising (nonbelievers) are bad—they are in fact wide currency, but it is plainly erroneous. tide of “aggressive atheism” in Germany, Nazis (or other types of totalitarians); (2) The assertion that Hitler was an atheist (or which is another figment of priestly imag- believers are good; they are not Nazis (or even simply anti-Christian) has been con- ination. While Germany, as many other Communists or other totalitarian extrem­ - vincingly refuted. Richard Carrier, for one, European countries, has seen a decline in ists). Apart from the general comfort here has exposed the various mistranslations, formal church member- misunderstandings, and plain fabrications ship, “aggressive athe- basic to the attribution of anti-religious, ists” are difficult to find. “Communism was totalitarian and atheistic. anti-Christian, and atheistic principles *Mixa’s resignation in April 2010 in connection with Nazism was totalitarian but not atheistic. to Hitler and his associates (see har- allegations of fraud and vio- It will not do to confuse rington-sites.com/Carrier5.htm). Yet the lence toward children in his fable persists. care does not diminish the atheism and totalitarianism.” The most recent perpetrator of this fab- cogency of his remarks on rication has been Walter Mixa, who recently Nazism.

secularhumanism.org December 2010 / January 2011 Free Inquiry 51 to be gained, for the German churches set of Hitler and the other Nazi leaders? account that I testify under oath with the there is the additional benefit of placing The fact is that the Nazis were not only not explicit appeal to God.” some distance between their rectories and atheists; many were militantly anti-atheist. The story of Nazi atheism is a fable. In the Nazis and of obscuring their collabora- Heinrich Himmler, head of the Schutz­ fact, anti-atheistic and pro-religious views tion with the Hitler regime. Of course, the staffel (SS), was the second-most influen- prevailed among most of the Nazi leader- clergy and factual truth always have had an tial and powerful leader of the Third Reich. ship. Only Alfred Rosenberg, not one of the uneasy relationship. Clerical approaches to His pronouncements carried authority and top leaders, can be said to have been truly the truth have been fully instrumental: if the weight. In a letter of March 11, 1937, to anti-Christian. Hitler, like the other import- truth is helpful, tell it; if it does not help, lie. a pastor, Himmler wrote: “Every SS-Man ant leaders of the Third Reich, remained a Another source may be a simple category is free to belong to a church or not. This church member, participated in standard error—though it is difficult to see how a is his personal concern, a matter in which religious ceremonies, and paid church taxes. reasonably well-educated person, such as a he is accountable only to God and his Those few Germans who did not continue bishop, could make it. The problem is that of conscience.” formal membership in the Christian church- another equation: totalitarianism = atheism. In a speech on September 2, 1938, es were not categorized as atheists but For Communism, of course, the equation is Himmler stated: “I don’t tolerate anyone in as “God-believers.” It is also noteworthy accurate. What does not follow, however, is the SS, who does not believe in God.” In a that religious instruction remained part of that therefore all totalitarianism is atheistic. much later speech, on July 26, 1944, to SS the public-school curriculum throughout the Nazism and Communism, as well as atheism, leaders (showing that there had been no Nazi period. are substantive theories; they proclaim sub- change of mind) he said: “Do not encour- Neither Christianity nor religion generally stantive canons. In contrast, totalitarianism age your men to leave their churches.” were targets of Nazi aggression. The Nazis is a procedural doctrine. It does not advance (These are my translations from the original did not persecute Christians simply for being particular substantive beliefs but specifies German—for which see Peter Longerich, Christians. Of course, they did not tolerate their scope of applicability: unrestricted and Heinrich Himm­ler: Biographie. Munich: religion-based opposition any more than total. Whatever substantive principles may Siedler Verlag, 2008, pp. 229, 831.) Finally, they tolerated other forms of opposition. be proclaimed, the totalitarian construc- the official creed of the SS stated that “we Persecution, however, was for being an tion gives them universal and unlimited believe in God, in Germany, and in the opponent of the regime, not for being a pertinence. It follows that there can be a Fuhrer”—God having the priority of place! religious believer. Encouraging atheism was Christian totalitarianism no less than fas- Rudolf Hess, Hitler’s deputy, made this state- in no way part of the Nazi agenda. To say cist or communist totalitarianism. But the ment at the Nuremberg trials, regarding the that Nazism was a form of atheism is a trans- substantive properties of one totalitarian credibility to be given to his oath: “I am not parent falsification—and clerical authorship system cannot be generalized to another. a church-goer, I do not have a strong rela- does not make it any less so. Communism was totalitarian and atheistic. tionship to the churches, but I am a deeply Nazism was totalitarian but not atheistic. It religious man. I am convinced that my belief will not do to confuse atheism and totali- in God (Gottglaube) is stronger Peter W. Sperlich is an emeritus professor of political science tarianism. than that of most other peo- at the University­ of California at Berkeley. What about the actual religious mind- ple. I ask the court to take into

You can make a lasting impact on the future of secular humanism . . . when you provide for Free Inquiry in your will.

The Council for Secular Humanism andFree Inquiry are leading voices of dissent and discussion in fields ranging from religion to church-state separation, civil rights, and ethical living. You can take an enduring step to preserve their vitality when you provide for Free Inquiry in your will. Your bequest to the Council for Secular Humanism, Inc., will help to provide for the future of secular humanism as it helps to keep Free Inquiry financially secure. Depending on your tax situation, a charitable bequest to the Council may have little impact on the net size of your estate—or may even result in a greater amount being available to your beneficiaries. We would be happy to work with you and your attorney in the development of a will or estate plan that meets your wishes. A variety of arrangements are possible, including: gifts of a fixed amount or a percentage of your estate; living trusts or gift annuities, which provide you with a lifetime income; or a contingent bequest that provides for Free Inquiry only if your primary beneficiaries do not survive you.

52 Free Inquiry December 2010 / January 2011 secularhumanism.org Faith and Reason

“I’m Not Religious, but I Am Spiritual” Richard Schoenig

ecent surveys have shown that the associated with two simple moral direc- each NRBSer the latitude to develop his or number of Americans who describe­ tives: Do good things, and don’t do bad her own individual sense of the divine; that, Rthemselves as having no religion has things. in turn, serves to inoculate the NRBS popu- grown in recent years. To the secular com- Finally, many NRBSers believe that the lation against the unseemly bickering and munity, this would appear to be welcome higher power probably rewards those who divisiveness that so often plagues organized news; however, we shouldn’t necessarily make a decent effort to live up to the moral religion (henceforth, just “religion”). interpret it as a rush to the secular exits by directives. Less is said about the fate of those religious Americans. Many of those who who fail to do so. Beyond this, NRBS involves Why Some Find NRBS Attractive profess to be “not religious” must still be very few, if any, other beliefs­ or commit- The major motivator for embracing NRBS counted in the transcendental believers’ ments. The relationship between NRBSers seems to be the NRBSers’ desire to distance camp, albeit more on the outskirts than and their higher power can be described as themselves from religion while still main- before. a theological version of “friends with ben- taining their bona fides as non-nontheists. One common elaboration of the “not efits.” Or think of it as “big-tent spirituality Let me explain the distancing part further. religious” designation is: “I’m not religious, begets theology ‘lite.’” Religious history. Many NRBSers know but I am spiritual.” I’ll abbreviate this as enough religious history to realize that it NRBS and those who assert it as NRBSers. In NRBS and Deism has the messy fingerprints of imperfect what follows I’ll explain what I take NRBS to NRBSers may be compared to eigh- human beings all over it. Bloody cru- mean, conjecture why it has been embraced teenth-century deists. Like deists, NRBSers sades, internecine religious wars, inqui- by a fair number of people, and develop a are not yet ready for prime-time unfaith. sitions, and pogroms—as well as recent number of criticisms of it. I hope thereby Instead, again like deists, NRBSers have revelations about pedophile priests and to enhance understanding of the growing constructed a theologically thin concep- hypocritical evangelical lechers—have con- NRBS phenomenon. tion of a higher power. It has been surmised that NRBS 101 for some, eighteenth-cen- “. . . Many NRBSers believe that the Obviously, one of the keys to understanding tury deism eventually be­ NRBS is to understand its component term came a barely disguised higher power probably rewards those who spiritual. Sometimes my NRBS college stu- beard for their nonbelief, make a decent effort to live up to the dents will tell me that neither atheism nor a gentleman’s atheism if moral directives. Less is said about agnosticism is an option for them because, you will. Seculars can only as they put it, “Everyone has to believe in hope that NRBSers will the fate of those who fail to do so.” something.” eventually trace a similar “Well, I believe that Austin is the capital trajectory. of Texas,” I somewhat mischievously reply. tributed to putting NRBSers off religion. “Does that count?” NRBS and Relativism At the same time, for those reluctant to “No. That’s not what I meant. Being Many people today, including many throw out the baby of supernaturalism spiritual means you have to believe in, uh, NRBSers, accept a relativistic view of belief with the bathwater of religion, NRBS leaves . . . well, like—a higher power.” claims. What might be called the “Who’s adherents ample space to cling to reassuring So I reply, “Like gravity or nuclear to say?” mentality is quite popular, espe- transcendental beliefs and hopes, including energy?” cially among younger people (from whose the possibility of a pleasant postmortem “No,” they respond with some exas- ranks NRBS draws numerous adherents). existence. peration. They then begin giving a hazy Relativism serves as a valued silent partner Scriptures and doctrines. NRBS has no description of their higher power. Although­ of NRBS. To turn an old saw on its head: scriptures or formal doctrines, lending it for some the higher power is an impersonal From that (NRBS) to which not much a seeming simplicity and tolerance that force like karma, the Tao, or Hinduism’s has been given (in terms of higher-power stand in sharp contrast to the turbidity Brahman, more commonly it is thought to description),­ not much is expected (in and raw judgmentalism on display in reli- be some sort of benign supernal being with terms of higher-power belief). For NRBSers, gious scriptures and doctrines authored significant capabilities and moral stature there is no one “right” conception of the by mere human beings (“Men wrote the who can communicate with, and has some higher power. Each person is entitled to Bible, didn’t they?”). For example, most interest in, humans. The higher power is describe it as she or he sees fit. This gives NRBSers feel that religious condemnation of

secularhumanism.org December 2010 / January 2011 Free Inquiry 53 homosexuality and relegation of females to for so long, on so many people? second-class status are unfair, archaic, and 3. Why are the higher power’s moral spiteful actions. Along similar lines, NRBSers directives so vague? NRBSers have diverse also realize that disagreements over scrip- views on important ethical issues such as tures and doctrines have far too often abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, Statement of Ownership, become a casus belli for religions. sexual practices, and the like. Shouldn’t Management, and Circulation Religious leaders and bureaucracies. a sufficiently good and knowledgeable

NRBSers believe that the spirituality reli- higher power know the correct positions Date of filing: September 16, 2010 gions claim to foster is dulled by their on such issues and possess the power and Title: FREE INQUIRY Frequency of issue: Bimonthly attendant bureaucracies and further dul­led desire to transmit that knowledge clearly Complete mailing address of known office of publication: because at times these bureaucracies may to humans? FREE INQUIRY, P.O. Box 664, Amherst, NY 14226-0664 Complete mailing address of known office of publisher: be presided over by persons of question- 4. How can the higher power be held Council for Secular Humanism, P.O. Box 664, Amherst, NY 14226-0664 able virtue. to be maximally (or nearly maximally) pow- Complete mailing address of headquarters of publisher: Council for Secular Humanism, P.O. Box 664, Amherst, Religious observances and communities. erful, knowledgeable, and good while it NY 14226-0664 As mentioned above, NRBSers believe that tolerates the great amount and intensity Editor: Thomas Flynn, P.O. Box 664, Amherst, NY 14226-0664 Managing Editor: Andrea Szalanski, P.O. Box 664, Amherst, religions are infected with flawed scriptures of human and animal suffering that exists NY 14226-0664 and doctrines. So, it’s not at all surprising in the world? This is, of course, the classic Known bondholders, mortgagees, and other security holders: None that they hold religious observances to be problem of evil, which has always been the Aver. no. No. of copies copies for the most part unavailing­ and religious most effective recruiting tool for atheism— each issue single issue during June/July communities as unnecessary for “true” spiri- and for good reason. preceding 2010 tuality—which, they feel, is more a matter of NRBSers’ inability to answer the fore- 12 months a. Total no. copies printed individual beliefs and actions. going questions adequately tells heavily (net press run) against the reasonableness of their view. 34,212 33,268 b. Paid circulation by mail and outside Shortcomings of NRBS the mail In what follows, I argue that the cogency Summing Up 1. Paid Outside County 22,987 21,610 2. Paid In-County Subscriptions 0 0 of NRBS is compromised by a number of I have tried to show that when it comes to 3. Sales through dealers and carriers, street vendors, and other non-USPS serious deficiencies regarding the existence NRBS, to borrow from Gertrude Stein, paid distribution 3,475 3,393 and description of the higher power. there is very little there there. It is cot- 4. Other classes mailed through the USPS 17 0 c. Total paid distribution 26,479 25,003 Existence of the higher power. NRBSers ton-candy theology. Nevertheless, as d. Free or nominal rate distribution by mail neither make, nor seem to feel that they recent polls have shown, it is a growing and outside the mail need to make, any serious effort to show presence on the social scene. Does it pose 1. Outside County 588 583 2. In-County 0 0 that the higher power actually exists. This a significant threat to that “old-time reli- 3. Other classes mailed through the USPS 53 56 isn’t unexpected because, as noted earlier, gion,” perhaps as harbinger of a relatively 4. Free distribution outside the mail 335 300 e. Total free or nominal rate distribution 976 939 NRBS is not what you’d call heavy-duty the- rapid phase change to European levels of f. Total distribution 27,455 25,942 ology. In fact, it’s not heavy-duty anything. secularity? Or, is it rather more a hiccup at g. Copies not distributed 6,757 7,326 TOTAL (Sum of f and g) 34,212 33,268 The question of probative evidence for the the buffet of American religiosity? I think Percent paid and/or requested circulation 96.45% 96.38% existence of the higher power appears on only time will tell. Stay tuned. no NRBS FAQ list. For NRBSers, worrying about “proving stuff” is the province of the Further Reading spiritually challenged. Nevertheless, NRBSers’ Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. “Religion Among the Millennials.” February inability or unwillingness to defend the exis- 17, 2010. Available online at http://pew tence of their higher power must be judged forum.org/Age/Religion-Among-the- a serious liability. Millennials.aspx. Description of the higher power. There are at least four important questions regarding the higher power that go largely unanswered by NRBSers. 1. If the existence and the moral mes- sage of the higher power are so important, why did it take so long in history for it to reveal itself and its message clearly? NRBS is, after all, a Richard Schoenig is professor of philosophy at San Antonio relatively recent phenomenon. College in Texas. When not trying to figure out the meaning of 2. Why has the higher life, he can be found playing pick-up basketball, doing cross- power permitted spiritually word puzzles, grousing about politics, or enjoying the natural defective religions to impose splendors of West Texas and the Colorado Rockies. their brands so successfully,

54 Free Inquiry December 2010 / January 2011 secularhumanism.org Humanism at Large

Jesus Points Julia Loreth

etting out of my car at the local gas given this nonbeliever a wonderful, fulfill- invitation to attend the woman’s church. station, I was greeted by a friend- ing life that includes the means to travel. Without a thought to the esteem I might Gly “Hello.” I returned the ac­knowl- This travel has put me in contact with peo- attach to my own, she built up her pastor edgment with an equally friendly reply. ple brimming with laughter and enchanted­ to be the best. I felt like she was challeng- Without another thought, I began the by life but who have never heard of Jesus ing me to find out for myself, which of steps required to fill my tank. Once the or the Bible. course meant I would have to attend. gas was flowing, I tightened my coat and I feel I had every right to bring up the The paradox is quite real and culpable to leaned back against my car. point that the man’s statement was biased those typified by the old man and the pam- “How are you today?” came the same to the verge of being bigoted. Why is it phlet-wielding woman. They draw strength voice, along with the face of a kind elderly that I did not take this approach? Experi­ from the vast numbers who call themselves gentleman. ence has shown me that it only leads to Christians but fail to accept any interpreta- “Lovely, thank you very much,” I hard-sell proselytizing. Even if I can make tion not in agreement with theirs. replied, giving my standard answer. it understood that I know about the Bible So what to do? Having found no re­ Before I could ask the expected come- and was taught most of the same things sponse reliably successful, I let my mood back, “And yourself?,” he interjected, “So as a child that my interloc- you must have Jesus in your heart.” utors were, I still cannot “No, I’m an atheist,” was my quick persuade such believers that response. And, as you might imagine, any my choice is equally as valid “The nice old man’s statement desire to have a conversation with this man as theirs. I rarely get the no longer presented itself. I got in my car opportunity to point out exemplifies a believer’s sense and turned on the radio. I thought that that taking Jesus into one’s of superiority over nonbelievers: would be the end of it. Surely, he would heart hardly appears to be I cannot possibly be in any type understand the gaffe he had committed. a choice. There are far too When I got out of my car to remove many quotes about indoc- of positive state without Jesus the nozzle, his voice sounded out again trinating children in one in my heart.” as friendly as before. “Why are you an direction or another before atheist?” it is too late, for example. If At this point, I had to make an effort people chose their religion to remain genteel. If you are not in some consciously and deliberately way optimistic about these experiences, after reaching adulthood, there should be dictate my tactics. Although I find humorous which are far too frequent, they can be far more homogenization of religion than responses more poignant, I often ask, “Is very irritating. Telling myself that he had there is. there any chance I might convince you that the best intentions, I said, “Because I have I have found that every approach is a Jesus is not the son of God?” The answer is had no experience that has given me rea- losing battle. In one encounter, as a means always no, to which my response­ is, “Then son to believe in a benevolent god.” Again, of avoiding a lengthy debate, I lied and what makes you think I would be willing to not wanting to take the conversation any told one woman that I was a Christian. The give up my disbelief?” Do not be fooled into further, I rushed to hang up the nozzle and conversation soon turned to what church thinking that this will be the end of the mat- get away. I attended. In a comedic panic, I said “St. ter. Conversion­ of skeptics and non-Chris- The nice old man’s statement exempli- Petersburg.” Without the slightest hesita- tians is an important component of Christian fies a believer’s sense of superiority over tion, she asked, “Is that Catholic?” I had faith; apparently a saved atheist is worth a nonbelievers: I cannot possibly be in any great difficulty not bursting into laughter; the lot of Jesus points redeemable on the Day of type of positive state without Jesus in my person I was with could not resist and had to Judgment. heart. There is a monopoly on happiness, walk away to conceal his mirth. I furthered and it belongs to the followers of Jesus. the deception with a negative I have forsaken Jesus and am therefore response and ad­ded that “St. Julia Loreth holds a master of science in biology and is a doomed to unhappiness and damnation, Petersburg” was Baptist. In a faculty member in the Department of Biology at the University at the very least. When given the chance, flash, a small pamphlet and of North Carolina at Greensboro. Among other activities, she I combat this attitude with the observation business card were thrust into works with outreach and community service programs. that their god in its infinite wisdom has my hand along with a fervent

secularhumanism.org December 2010 / January 2011 Free Inquiry 55 Thinking Cosmically

Keep Your Eyes on the Stars Lawrence Rifkin

t sunset, lie down outside, face up Big Bang = January 1 A cosmic worldview, which includes life with your back against the earth. Try Life Begins on Earth = October 2 on Earth, reveals a universe that is dynamic A to feel viscerally what you know to Mammals = December 26 and continually changing, not static or pre- be true: as the brilliant sun dips below the Homo sapiens = December 31, determined. Whether it is the interaction of horizon, filling the sky with celestial color, 11:53 p.m. (about seven matter or the interaction of people, reality it is actually the massive planet you feel minutes before midnight) and morality are contextual, not fixed by on the back of your head, torso, and arms Recorded Human History: ten some eternal cosmic moral lawgiver or that is spinning around. Then feel your seconds before midnight specific predetermined outcome. Unlike body react when this insight hits: cosmo- We are life’s nouveaux riche. dogma, humanist views and understand- logically speaking, there is no absolute up What does all this have to do with ings of our cosmos and our actions can or down—gravity could be holding you to humanism? That is a question de­serving change as evidence changes. There is no the bottom of the planet as you’re looking exploration, especially because “a cosmic “deeper” reality beyond our naturalistic outlook” or a “cosmic universe. Reality’s depths are “deeper” perspective rooted in than we can dream. And its complexities science” is often includ- “By being willing to evaluate the nature are open to naturalistic explanation and ed as part of secular exploration. of the universe at even the largest scale, humanism’s definition. the cosmic worldview of humanism reinforces In part, this wording The Truth Matters a commitment to the reality of naturalism reflects a commitment The truth about our world matters to to a method of inqui- humanists. If we cannot look outside nature for all phenomena, from cosmology ry. This essay will focus for salvation, we need to know what to quarks to consciousness.” on the less commonly nature does and does not offer. Values visited question of why based on cosmological claims (whether our knowledge of the supernatural or not) lose the basis of universe and the scien- their legitimacy if these claims about how tific cosmic worldview are relevant to here- down into the vast cosmos below. The dis- the world is, came to be, or will end are on-Earth secular humanists and the values tances are mind-boggling. If our sun were unsupported by evidence. As mountains we promote. shrunk down to the size of a basketball of scientific data continue to accumulate, and placed in New York City, on that scale Naturalism—A Cosmic Approach concepts such as heaven, hell, creationism, our next closest star would be in Honolulu. for All Levels a separable immortal soul, and the like Now try to visualize the immensity of more receive no supportive evidence. In this way, By being willing to evaluate the nature of than 200 billion stars in our galaxy. That’s the scientific cosmic perspective offers an the universe at even the largest scale, the just one galaxy. There are at least 100 bil- cosmic worldview of humanism reinforces evidence-based reality check to supernat- lion galaxies in the observable universe. The a commitment to the reality of naturalism ural claims and faith-based belief systems. entire universe is expanding, and the rate of for all phenomena, from cosmology to Humanists face the truth and then expansion is accelerating, faster and faster. quarks to consciousness. The scientific strive to make the world as it actually When you’re done, I suggest that you evidence-based approach is applicable to exists better. Humanists look the world in stand up slowly. all levels, whether looking at the cosmos the eye and, using imagination and initia- The universe is unfathomably old as as a whole, understanding our minds, tive, build castles in the sand, not castles well. If the age of the universe were made evaluating the nature of entities such as an in the sky. The cosmic worldview based on equivalent to a calendar year, it would look embryo, or analyzing the consequences of science is the biggest possible backdrop to like this: human actions. affirm these values.

56 Free Inquiry December 2010 / January 2011 secularhumanism.org Human Uniqueness and Responsibility were doing what was best). We no longer There will still be those who just won’t The universe may be made of matter, but burn witches because we accept a more see the point. As Woody Allen quipped, human minds can decide what matters. scientifically factual worldview in which “I’m astounded by people who want to The cosmic perspective reinforces there is no evidence for witches and where ‘know’ the universe when it’s hard enough to find your way around Chinatown.” But it the significance and the potentially tragic phenomena can be explained naturally could be said in response that fully taking dimensions of human choice and respon- without the witch hypothesis. The cosmic worldview also reveals our advantage of being alive and human in our sibility. There is something inspirational common origin and kinship. We are not age of information means understanding about human abilities and possibilities. In separate from nature or each other in and appreciating our place in the universe our known universe, it is only humans some transcendent sense. All people—all with modern scientific knowledge to which who can rise above a world that is morally life—are made of star stuff, have evolved no other species on Earth, and no other neutral. There can be no falling from grace; from common ancestors, are endowed human in over 99 percent of our history, there can be no rising above an immoral with the same genetic code, and face the had access. world in a universe that as a whole is mor- same global threats. There ally neutral. We can rise and fall relative to is no evidence of any cho- our own nature, our sense of morality, and sen people, separable soul, our potential. But the world as a whole is or path to heaven or hell. “A deeply felt understanding that neither sinful nor full of pure goodness. Our parochial earthly reli- humans are the evolved agents of Humans, an unplanned natural product gious and ethnic differences of evolution, with our capacity for choice, conscious meaning and action in the are not, by any cosmic defi- reason, and compassion, are now an influ- universe can help promote an inspiring nition, worth slaughtering ential agent of change on the planet and each other over. Further, by and dramatic secular humanist vision.” therefore moral agents of great signifi- revealing Earth as a rare and cance. Our responsibility emerges naturally precarious home in a vast, from the human capacity for morality and cold universe, the cosmic human possibilities for change. A deeply outlook helps us make more informed deci- Of course, we all have interests in and felt understanding that humans are the sions regarding values such as long-term passions for different subjects. The cosmic evolved agents of conscious meaning and ecological sustainability and the well-being worldview of humanism includes an appre- action in the universe can help promote of future generations. ciation of the naturalistic whole but also an an inspiring and dramatic secular humanist In all these ways, the big picture allows appreciation of human diversity and vision (see my “Evolutionary Humanism for us to work toward a more fair society that uniqueness within that naturalistic whole. a New Era,” FI, June/July 2008). We are the fosters freedom and the common good. When astronaut Charles Walker first saw only known phenomenon in the universe the brilliant panorama of Earth from space, that can, through conscious decision, rad- eep your eyes on the stars and your he wrote, “I held my breath, but something ically alter the entire future of life on our “Kfeet on the ground.” I used that was missing ... Here was a tremendous planet and perhaps beyond. quote, ascribed to Teddy Roosevelt, in my visual spectacle, but viewed in silence. high-school yearbook. It would also be a There was no grand musical accompani- Enlarging Our Moral Perspective fitting quote for humanism in general—the ment, no triumphant, inspired sonata or A scientific cosmic perspective helps train ground being naturalism, evidence, and rea- symphony. Each one of us must write the our minds to see the world more objec- son and the stars being the ongoing goals music of this sphere for ourselves.” Part of tively, from a wider perspective and with of widespread freedom, fairness, and hap- human uniqueness includes­ individual pas- a longer lens. Such a point of view can piness. But the stars are not just representa- sions: particular and personal, big and help us see moral issues more objectively in tions of abstract potential or goals; nor are small. Such passions give our lives mean- ways that various moral philosophers have they part of some imaginary religious heav- ing—whether looking up at the stars or referred to as “the view from above,” “the enly realm. They are real, colossal accumu- into a lover’s eyes. expanding circle of morality,” and “equal lations of matter and energy, the source of consideration of interests.” most of the larger molecules The scientific cosmic perspective can that make up our bodies, part Lawrence Rifkin, a physician and writer, has been published by also help us avoid basing our morality and of the greater universe from the National Academy of Sciences and in Medical Economics, political decisions on that which does not which we emerged, and part in which he was named the Grand Prize winner of the Doctors’ exist. We no longer burn witches, but not of that into which our bod- Writing Contest. His essays in FI explore humanism as a source because we are inherently more moral than ies and planet will one day of meaning and inspiration. the people of Salem (they believed they dissipate.

secularhumanism.org December 2010 / January 2011 Free Inquiry 57 Reviews

It’s That Dysfunctional ‘Family’ Again Edmund D. Cohen

Street is the continuation of The Family:The Secret Fundamentalism at Cthe Heart of American Power (reviewed­ in FI, February/March 2010). Soon after The C Street:The Fundamentalist Threat to American Democracy, by Family came out, there were sensational Jeff Sharlet­ (New York: Little, Brown and Co., 2010, ISBN 978- subsequent developments. Thanks to Jeff 0-316-09107-7) 352 pp. Cloth $26.99. Sharlet, those were well reported. Without him, they might have come out only in fits and starts—their significance unrecognized, their “dots” unconnected. The “Family” is a Washington, D.C.– based para-church organization that “min- at the Family’s Ivanwald retreat house her man. Instead, thanks to Sharlet, it isters” to right-wing public officials through- in Arlington, Virginia. He had come as a came out that all three men were oddly out the world. It has long evaded public spiritual seeker, supposedly not expecting unrepentant and had acted with an incon- view, known to the general public only as to find a target for investigative reporting. gruous sense of entitlement and impunity, the sponsor of the ecumenical-appearing His March 2003 Harper’s article about the arising from the Family’s peculiar and lit- National Prayer Breakfast. Its house at 133 experience, “Jesus Plus Nothing: Undercover­ tle-known doctrine. With all three, Family C Street SE serves as a subsidized boarding Among America’s Secret Theocrats” grew intervention—bizarre biblical counseling, house for members of Congress and other into The Family. help with cover-up arrangements, making top officials. Abroad, the organization cul- In 2009, three top officials with close the C Street house available as a place for tivates “key men” as U.S. diplomatic and Family ties were caught philandering, assignation—had made matters worse. military clients and as business contacts. betraying wives whose loyal efforts had That doctrine—very different from any- In 2002, Sharlet resided for a time made their illustrious careers thing else on the religious Right—is the possible: South Carolina idiosyncrasy of Doug Coe, the Family’s Governor Mark San­ford, eighty-two-year-old longtime head. As a “Doug Coe, the Family’s Nevada Senator John Ensign, Cold Warrior, he was much involved in eighty-two-year-old longtime head . . . and Missis­sippi Con­gressman steering third-world countries to be run took the existing ‘muscular’ and Chip Pick­er­ing. The Pickering by U.S. clients rather than Soviet ones. He scandal involved­ a circuitous took the existing “muscular” and “prosper- ‘prosperity’ renditions of the Christian illegal payoff to the inamora- ity” renditions of the Christian gospel and gospel and morphed them into the view ta’s family and her husband— morphed them into the view that promi- that prominent ‘saved’ operatives are Pickering’s close friend, whom nent “saved” operatives are above normal he had cuckolded. All three ethics, biblical as well as temporal. Even above normal ethics, biblical stories unfolded without ben- if the Family-connected third-world “key as well as temporal.” efit of the usual mea culpa man” does not profess Christianity, he still news conference and with- has God’s favor by virtue of his position, out the obligatory wronged and his sin is washed away by Jesus’s wife standing supportively by blood. Coe incendiarily professed admira-

58 Free Inquiry December 2010 / January 2011 secularhumanism.org tion for the ruthlessness of Hitler, Stalin, Enough heed is apparently being taken of ter about the concentration of Christian Mao, etc. Early on, the Family was orga- the economic and political sanctions that fundamentalists in the present-day all-vol- nized along the lines of Communist cells. would come with passage of such legislation unteer U.S. military. There are appreciable The “chosen” are entitled to a free to cause the death penalty to be stripped out concentrations of senior military personnel hand—not only in pursuing larger purpos- of the bill. The bill, which is wildly popular, trying to convert the global war on terrorism es but for their own interests as well. The will, however, surely be enacted in some into an anti-Islamic crusade. Also, there are object of the game is to co-opt existing top form. Pogroms against gays cannot be far many cases where superiors subject U.S. mil- men (women are all but nonexistent in the off in Uganda. itary personnel to evangelistic bullying. This Family) to become the Family’s key men. In The Family was slow to recognize the chapter could be a fine freestanding article countries with elected officials, these men opprobrium that would greet what its key or the nucleus of an important book. But the must be enlightened as to why they are no man in Uganda had done. Tardily, it tried topic has little connection with the Family longer to serve their constituents but rath- to get Bahati to withdraw or water down and nothing at all to do with Coe’s peculiar er to serve the Family’s larger purposes. the legislation. The possibility that Bahati doctrine. It does not belong in this book. The Family brought a kind of trafficking in might participate in the 2010 National Prayer Most exasperating is Sharlet’s diffi- indulgences into the twentieth century. All Breakfast was left open. For the first time dence regarding giving himself credit for that happens behind the scenes; the Family in its long existence, there were protesters what he accomplished. Without him, the does not deign to engage in retail politics. outside the event. rest of the story behind the three sex scan- Sharlet’s coverage of The fundamentalist threat of this book’s these events is excellent subtitle isn’t a barbarian at the gate. Nor is it an ideology that erects statues, as journalism and as pri- a theology in jackboots. It’s far more mary source material. The practical than that. It’s a religion that documentation is exten- “Pogroms against gays cannot be far asks, like Doug Coe does, “What does sive. Sharlet’s­ narrative of Jesus have to say about building roads?” off in Uganda. The Family was slow And just as important, Who’ll [sic] get his first-person experience to recognize the opprobrium that the contract? What’s the margin? We’ve finding­ out the facts and reached the point where piety and cor- interacting with the peo- would greet what its key man in ruption aren’t at odds but are one and ple—David Bahati gave Uganda had done.” the same. [p. 89] him abundant face time— While Family shenanigans were playing is his strong suit. out as farce in the United States, they were His handling of the turning into dire tragedy in Uganda, where conceptual material is biblical anti-gay rhetoric has metastasized less strong. When Doug Coe was in his dals would have gone unrecognized. into something far beyond gratuitous trash prime, the crux of the Family’s distinctive Without him, the Family would not have talk. Such rhetoric has long been the stock- doctrine—setting it apart from “normal” been tarred with the scurrilous develop- in-trade of American evangelists touring fundamentalism—was having the ends ments it caused in Uganda. He writes of Africa. In Uganda, it has given rise to justify the means for God’s chosen elite. threats to democracy when, almost single- inflamed­ anti-gay hysteria. These days, God’s chosen got to scoff at “conventional, handedly, he made sure that if the Family any Ugandan is subject to having his life bourgeois morality” just as early twenti- was ever able to constitute such a threat, and reputation summarily ruined by being eth-century totalitarian revolutionaries did. that ability is now past. Though the constit- denounced as gay. The big idea was to empower them to be uents of conservative politicians might not Late in 2009, David Bahati, a Ugandan as powerful as Nazis and communists in mind if their elected representatives go off MP and Secretary of the Family’s Ugandan the context of those times. to live in a house of assignation, their branch, introduced legislation called the Anti- From that stance to the pitiful self-in- spouses do. Homosexuality Bill. The legislation would dulgence of Sanford, Ensign, and Pickering’s­ make failure to denounce someone known iterations is a long step. If Coe’s doctrine was to be homosexual a penitentiary offense. an aberration of normal funda­ mentalism,­ One homosexual encounter could be pun- then the way these three applied it was an ished with life imprisonment. Repeated or aberration of that aberration. Sharlet’s fail- “aggravated” homosexual encounters­ would ure to see that distinction makes Edmund D. Cohen is the author of The Mind of the Bible- carry the death penalty—that, in a country his analysis difficult to follow. Believer (Prometheus Books, 1998). Sharlet has tacked on a chap- with few capital offenses in its existing laws.

secularhumanism.org December 2010 / January 2011 Free Inquiry 59

Take a break from your routine and join us on a cruise that will provide fascinating ports of call, engaging conversations, and informative discussions—all in a relaxing, unhurried atmosphere. Our tour will be lots of fun and, we hope, another one of those unforgettable experiences we tend to have when we get together!

When you participate in CFI Travel Club trips, you support the work of the Center. All cruise reservations should be made through:

CFI Travel Director Pat Beauchamp Address: 3965 Rensch Rd. Amherst, NY 14228 Fax: (716) 636-1733 E-mail: [email protected] Reservations: 1-800-681-6577 or (716) 636-4869 ext. 325

Ports of Call Venice Bari Katakolon Santorini Mykonos Piraeus Corfu Dubrovnik

Insurance, airfare, and hotel information provided by: Stovroff & Taylor Travel Contact: Jennifer Dudek Tuesday–Thursday 9:30am–2:30pm 1-800-543-8616 ext. 213 Reviews

The Emergence of ‘Social Conservatives’ in Canada George Williamson

he problematic intersection of reli- gion and politics is much more on Tthe surface of public life south of the U.S.–Canada border than it is to the north, so much so that many Canadians do not believe it exists in their country at all. Even The Armageddon Factor: The Rise of Christian Nationalism in though Canada has nothing comparable to Canada, by Marci McDonald (Toronto: Random House Canada, the American Constitution’s establishment 2010, ISBN 978-0-307-35646-8) 432 pp. Cloth $27. clause, it is arguably a more secular nation, and its politicians are far less prone to invoking­ God. Despite the foregrounding of the issue in the United States during and after the Bush years, many reporters on Canada’s Parliament Hill scoff that “it could never happen up here.” four years later became The Armageddon quietly insinuated itself into think tanks, That belief did not dissuade Marci Factor: The Rise of Christian Nationalism educational institutions, and government McDonald, an award-winning veteran Can­ in Canada. Perhaps McDonald’s careful bureaucracies. McDonald does not claim, adian journalist and former Wash­ington tracing of personal connections, mentor- however, that this group worked together correspondent for the venerable Canadian ships, favors, memberships in key groups, conspiracy-style, and she acknowledges and financial relationships the group’s internal differences; however, will silence those skeptical the connections she finds are surprisingly “McDonald’s careful tracing of personal of religion’s influence on intricate. McDonald is careful to empha- Canadian politics. But it has size the religious diversity of the people connections, mentorships, favors, certainly made those who involved: evangelical Protestants, certainly, memberships in key groups, and financial dislike her message more but also Catholics, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, and relationships will silence those vociferous. Muslims.­ Perversely, her critics latch onto McDonald’s mode of this and satirize her as depicting a Christian skeptical of religion’s influence presentation in The Arma­ conspiracy composed of Jews and Sikhs, on Canadian politics.” geddon Factor is narra- when her central category is actually “social tive, making her case with conservatives.” This grouping explains how a series of episodes—from non-Christians can get behind Christian val- both historical and current ues—the term is code for opposition to gay newsweekly Maclean’s. Mc­Donald set her sources—that illustrate the relationships marriage (and gay rights generally) and abor- skills in investigative re­porting to work on the she uncovers between Canadian politics tion, as well as a couple of other issues that paper trail connecting Canadian religious and religion. Given that observation, per- typically obsess social conservatives of many Right organizations with their American haps the easiest way to indicate the con- different faiths. cousins and ultimately with the conserva- tent of the book is to state some of the At least a subsection of these groups tive government of Stephen Harper, the theses for which McDonald argues. seems to regard Canada as playing a special current prime minister of Canada. What Her principal thesis is that over the past role in its version of the end times. It is hard appeared initially in the Walrus (October few decades, a contingent of conservative to follow what little logic there is here, but 2006) as an article on Harper’s religious— believers who wish to see Canada guid- it has something to do with a motto from and political—journey to evangelicalism ed and governed by Christian values has Psalm 72 that appears on Canada’s Peace

62 Free Inquiry December 2010 / January 2011 secularhumanism.org Tower in Ottawa: “He shall have dominion tion as a private religious matter. Similarly, should have written a scholarly treatise. also from sea to sea, and from the river unto Canadian conservatives also have issues with Apparently, journalistic standards are not the ends of the earth.” Supposedly, this the supposedly “activist” judiciary and “lib- satisfactory for journalism if the news is statement identifies the territory of Canada eral” media. not favorable. and specifies the existence of a Canadian On the other hand, until recently This book was four years in the making Christian theocracy as a precondition for the Canadian regulators did not license exclu- with good reason. Contrary to critics’ Second Coming. In any case, this apocalyp- sively uni-denominational religious broad- claims, McDonald’s background research ticism helps explain the Christian Zionism in casters, in­sist­ing on Canada’s policy of mul- on the American and Canadian religious the social conservatism movement, as well ticulturalism. Sadly, this policy was toppled Right is extensive and substantial, even if it as the Harper government’s hostility toward recently by renegade religious broadcast- focuses more on recent work than on the any criticism of Israel, which also plays a ers who dared regulators to crucial role in the Great Tribulation. Putting stop their illegal broadcasts Canada back on the straight and narrow and won. But McDonald’s “. . . Over the past few decades, before the Rapture comes is a major goal for most chilling revelation is a contingent of conservative believers these Canadian theocrats. the development of a par- Another crucial thesis of The Armaged­ allel educational system in who wish to see Canada guided and don Factor concerns the social conserva- which students can “spend governed by Christian values has quietly tives’ will to achieve by stealth what they an entire academic lifetime insinuated itself into think tanks, cannot achieve honestly. Preston Manning, inside the cocoon of faith- who in the 1980s founded the Reform based institutions,” thus educational institutions, Party—thus giving a voice to the far-Right guaranteeing a whole gen- and government bureaucracies.” elements in Canadian politics—is credited eration the luxury of never with counseling his followers to be “wise as confronting a different serpents and harmless as doves.” McDonald point of view. classics, which is only appropriate when recounts Manning’s admiration of a tactic The publication of The Armageddon taking the pulse of the present milieu. used by nineteenth-century British abolition- Factor in the late spring of 2010 sparked a McDonald’s original research consists of ist William Wilberforce, who managed to firestorm in the Canadian media and blogo- numerous interviews with some of the key make deep cuts in the British slave trade by sphere as conservatives rushed to minimize players in Canadian politics and religion. concealing the legislation within another bill. the book’s impact. Much of the attack on She also attended many of the conferences Those following recent Canadian politics the book was absurd beyond believing, as and events that the Right organizes. As she will see in this modus operandi a tem- the more hysterical of McDonald’s critics remarks in her source notes, the words she plate for tactics of the Harper government, accused her of mistaking Jews for Chris­ puts in people’s mouths are mostly their though not with so lofty a goal as ending tians (and therefore being an anti-Semite) own. The bad faith is hard not to see when slavery. as well as a number of other implausible critics rail against the unsavory appearance McDonald makes several compari- errors. More levelheaded critics still make of their own words. sons with the religious-political situation in rather much of McDonald’s factual errors, America. She tours Canada’s own creationist even though a corrected second edition museum in southern Alberta and highlights is already in the works. Even conserva- inadequate science education, especially tive academics have weighed about evolution. The Harper government’s in, mainly charging her with George Williamson, PhD, teaches philosophy at the University neglect of science is reflected in the fact that not having written a different of Saskatchewan. He is also an editorial assistant at Dialogue: the cabinet member with the science and book than she did: by the Canadian Philosophical Review. He is a proud Canadian citizen, technology portfolio regards belief in evolu- standards they assume, she in spite of the Harper government.

secularhumanism.org December 2010 / January 2011 Free Inquiry 63 Reviews

Christmas Philosophies for (Almost) Everyone Tom Flynn

hilosophy for Everyone is an Anglo- American book series “meant to pro- Pmote philosophical reflection on every- day activities.” Series editor Fritz Allhoff has assembled nontechnical but incisive Christmas—Philosophy for Everyone: Better Than a Lump volumes on topics including beer, wine, and of Coal, edited by Scott C. Lowe (Chichester, UK: Wiley- whiskey (one book each), cycling, college Blackwell, 2010, ISBN 1-4443-3090-8) 352 pp. Paper $19.95. sex, porn, and serial killers. Given this proud lineage, a Philosophy for Everyone volume on Christmas­ was as inevitable as the pain that follows Aunt Esmeralda dropping a fruitcake on one’s foot. Fortunately, this book is more fun than that! Volume editor Scott C. Lowe, chair of philosophy at Bloomsburg University of may have been too brief: Nissenbaum writes is an enjoyable and stimulating read. Pennsylvania, recruited twenty-four able that the scene in the Gospel of Luke in which Contributors ponder the holiday’s origins, thinkers from both sides of the Atlantic to shepherds watch their flocks by night “offers its morality, and its reflections in the eyes contribute meaty, often irreverent, invari- no clue about when” in the year Christmas of non-Christians. “Christmas neither needs ably witty essays on many aspects of the occurred. That’s funny; is this the same a defense nor does it deserve one,” scoffs holiday. That total does not include Santa Stephen Nissenbaum who noted in his own Vanderbilt University philosopher Scott F. Claus, who is nonetheless bylined as author book (p. 4) that even the Puritans recognized Aikin in a refreshing take on the oft- of the work’s closing essay. this particular detail as probably ruling out a flogged “War on Christmas” (p. 58). Aikin In a brief foreword, Stephen Nissen­ winter birth date? Even in Palestine it’s too is also the first in the book to note a major baum—author of the imposing 1997 history cold to stay out with the flocks in December. problem with Santa Claus: “. . . it’s clear The Battle for Christmas—establishes the Given Nissenbaum’s prominence, a he’s a slave-owner. The elves and the book’s dominant theme: the complex and good copy editor should have caught that reindeer all seem either his chattel or at troubled relationship between “the Manger departure—just as someone should have least his perpetual servants. The story of and the Sleigh,” the holiday’s intertwined fixed independent scholar Cindy Scheop­ Rudolph is the story of one such slave who sacred and secular traditions. The foreword ner’s assertion that “Hawaii’s religious ma­ comes to adore his bonds” (p. 55). For Aikin, jority is evangelical and main- this theme is an aside; Minnesota State line Protestant with a com- University business ethicist Matthew Brophy bined 44 percent, according makes it the focus of an entire article, aptly to a recent survey” (p. 221). titled “Santa’s Sweatshop,” concluding that “. . . A surprising number of typos Call me a stickler, but 44 per- “Santa is the Kim Jong-Il of the North Pole” and misspellings . . . leave the reader cent is a plurality, not a major- (p. 134). ity. Slips like these, coupled The reader should not presume from wishing that Santa might shimmy with a surprising number of this commentary that all of this book’s down Wiley-Blackwell’s chimney with typos and misspellings, leave essays focus on the Santa myth or that all the gift of better quality control.” the reader wishing that Santa are snarky in tone. Contributors include might shimmy down Wiley- Christians, atheists, a pagan, and others Black­well’s chimney with the whose perspectives cannot be discerned; gift of better quality control. their attitudes range from skepticism to Errors aside, Christmas cockeyed reverence. What they share is a

64 Free Inquiry December 2010 / January 2011 secularhumanism.org commitment to expressing philosophically a tree or telling the kids about Santa. No Mason has become just one more contrib- considered thought in dynamic prose. one defends the position that the holiday’s utor who reconciles much of traditional Oh, and they share one other thing: religious associations make even its pagan holiday practice with her nontraditional despite their surface diversity, no contrib- elements de facto emblems of Christianity’s lifestance. utor thoroughgoingly dislikes or disdains still-oppressive power over our culture. In a Christmas—Philosophy for Everyone: the holiday. “Feel free to call us Scrooges,” book that prides itself on viewing the holiday Better Than a Lump of Coal is engaging. invite PhD candidate Zachary Jurgensen and from “some very untraditional perspectives” Anyone who hasn’t already made a special- graduate student Jason Southworth at the (p. 7), not a single writer proposes treating ty of holiday history and lore will no doubt end of a rollicking dissection of virgin-birth December 25 as “just another day.” One learn much from it. But if the publishers myths. “You can even call us Grinches—just comes close: while describing the point in and editors intended to create a provoca- don’t call us wrong or late for Christmas a complicated religious biography where tive, fearless anthology, the end product is dinner” (p. 22). Concluding an evocative she first passed from Christianity­ to pagan- somewhat “safer” than they may have plea for balance between the holiday’s ism, professor of psychology Marion G. planned. pagan and Christian elements, Lycoming Mason recalls, “It was as if I was feeling College English-lit specialist Todd Preston the inundating waves of Christmas cul- sounds a similar note: “. . . just keep your ture for the first time. What about all the mitts off my eggnog” (p. 46). people who aren’t celebrating Christmas?” Several argue independently that (p. 204). Instead of following Tom Flynn, the editor of Free Inquiry and the executive director Christmas’s secular/pagan aspects are now that promising thread—what of the Council for Secular Humanism, is the author of The so independent of the holiday’s Christian about the folks for whom Trouble with Christmas (Prometheus Books, 1993). roots that no Hindu, Jew, or atheist need Christmas is someone else’s have second thoughts about, say, trimming holiday?—by article’s end,

“SETTING THE AGENDA: Secular Humanism’s Next 30 Years” 2010 Conference Audio CDs Now Available!

Order the complete set today! The special offer previously available only to conference attendees is now available to all, but only during the shelf life of this issue of FREE INQUIRY through January 15, 2011). Order the full set of conference proceedings on multiple audio CDs for just $117 plus shipping and handling. You’ll receive approximately 15 discs (exact number of discs depends on session lengths, not available when this ad was written). This is the lowest full-set price that will be offered. Act today!

Please send______set(s) of “Setting the Agenda: Secular Humanism’s Next 30 Years” Yes! on multiple audio compact discs. Each set is $127 ($117 + $10 shipping and handling).

Credit card # ______Exp. ______/ ______Signature(s) ______Name(s) ______Address ______City ______State ______ZIP ______Daytime phone ( ) ______E-mail ______

L Check enclosed (U.S. checks only drawn on U.S. bank and denominated in U.S. dollars. Payable to the Council for Secular Humanism) Charge my: L American Express L Discover L MasterCard L Visa Mail to: Conference CDs, Council for Secular Humanism, P.O. Box 664, Amherst, NY 14226-0664. Credit-card orders may be faxed to (716)636-1733 or called in toll-free to (800)458-1366 from 9 AM to 5 PM Eastern Time.

secularhumanism.org December 2010 / January 2011 Free Inquiry 65 Poems

Doubt Rick Ferris

I II

In the beginning, church was fun, because At night, alone, good boy I was back then, I thought the priest was God, a person I I read the Bible, every gospel, psalm, Could see, perceive: a man with hairy jaws, Epistle, song, in bed, and, born again, A voice, and glasses on his nose; but, by Companionship with Christ sufficed to calm And, by a thought intruded, unexpected, My restive heart and mind. John’s masterpiece, That measured Priest and found his mien unlike Apocalypse (whose seven seals still plague What Heaven’s host should be; now doubt-infected, My dreams some nights), alone, did block release I waited vainly for the lightning strike. From thoughts profane and intuitions vague. I whined and pouted, begged this God to show The Antichrist’s and Satan’s ways and words Himself, demanded Mommy tell me where Intrigued and fed a hunger dangerous And why this unseen God would hide, yet know To soul, and summoned animated hordes That I, a child, was seeking Him, but there Of feelings primal, chthonic, glorious!— Would come no answer—none, at least, without An inkling’s voice (let’s call it Revelation) Her rustling shrug confirming that first doubt. Said Good and Evil are of equal station.

III

On Sunday mornings, cold and crisp, I thought But never, ever hit the mark foretold. At times that God was there, because a leaf I miss those sunny days and mourn the loss Was gliding downward, headed straight for naught Of innocence that education, age, But me as if designed to prove belief And science wore away like proverbed moss In Him no accident of chance like flight And turned my mind as fingers do a page. Of fancy paper planes that I would fold Yet seldom lost is sleep from knowing truth, At twelve, thirteen, that veered to left or right And doubtless Hell disturbed my dreams in youth.

Rick Ferris is an adjunct instructor of English at Stark State College in North Canton, Ohio. His work has appeared previously in Harvard Magazine.

66 Free Inquiry December 2010 / January 2011 secularhumanism.org Frankfurt (Germany) Wole Soyinka, Nobel Laureate, playwright (Nigeria) Margherita Hack, astronomer, astrophysicist (Italy) Barbara Stanosz, professor of philosophy, Instytut Herbert Hauptman, Nobel Laureate; professor of bio- Wydawniczy “Ksiazka i Prasa” (Poland) physical science, State University of New York at Jack Steinberger, Nobel Laureate in Physics (USA) Buffalo (USA) Thomas S. Szasz, professor of psychiatry, State University­ of INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF HUMANISM Alberto Hidalgo Tuñón, professor of philosophy, New York Medical School, Syracuse (USA) ACADÉMIE INTERNATIONALE D’HUMANISME Universidad de Oviedo (Spain) Sir Keith Thomas, historian, president, Corpus Christi The Academy is composed of nontheists who are: (1) Christopher Hitchens, author, lecturer (USA) College, Oxford University (UK) devoted to the principle of free inquiry in all fields of Donald Johanson, Institute of Human Origins Rob Tielman, professor of sociology, Universiteit voor human endeavor; (2) committed to the scientific outlook (discoverer of “Lucy”) (USA) Humanistiek, Utrecht; former copresident, Inter­ and the use of reason and the scientific method in Sergeí Kapitza, chair, Moscow Institute of Physics and national Humanist and Ethical Union (Netherlands) acquiring knowledge about nature; and (3) upholders of Technology; vice president, Academy of Sciences Lionel Tiger, professor of anthropology, Rutgers–the humanist ethical values and principles. (Russia) State University of New Jersey (USA) , HUMANIST LAUREATES George Klein cancer researcher, Karolinska Institute, Neil deGrasse Tyson, scientist, Hayden Planetarium (USA) Stockholm (Sweden) Mario Vargas Llosa, author (Perú) Pieter Admiraal, medical doctor (Netherlands) György Konrád, novelist; sociologist; cofounder, Simone Veil, former Minister of Social Affairs, Health, Shulamit Aloni, former education minister (Israel) Hungarian Humanist Association (Hungary) and Urban Affairs (France) Ruben Ardila, psychologist, National University of Sir Harold W. Kroto, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry (UK) Gore Vidal, author, social commentator (USA) Colombia (Colombia) Ioanna Kuçuradi, secretary general, Fédération­ Mourad Wahba, professor of philosophy, University Margaret Atwood, author (Canada) Internationale des Sociétés de Philosophie­ (Turkey) of Ain Shams, Cairo; president of the Afro-Asian Kurt Baier, professor of philosophy, University of Paul Kurtz, professor emeritus of philosophy, State Philosophical Association (Egypt) Pittsburgh (USA) University of New York at Buffalo (USA) James Watson, Nobel Laureate in Physiology or Etienne-Emile Baulieu, Lasker Award for Clinical Valerii A. Kuvakin, philosopher, founding director, Center Medicine (USA) Medicine winner (France) for Inquiry/Moscow (Russia) Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize winner; professor of phys- Baruj Bonacerraf, Nobel Prize Laureate in Physiology or Gerald A. Larue, professor emeritus of archeology and ics, University of Texas at Austin (USA) Medicine (USA) biblical studies, University of Southern California at Harvey Weinstein, cofounder of Miramax (USA) Elena Bonner, author, human rights activist (Russia) Los Angeles (USA) George A. Wells, professor of German, Birkbeck College, Jacques Bouveresse, professor of philosophy, Collège Thelma Lavine, Clarence J. Robinson professor of philos- University of London (UK) de France (France) ophy, George Mason University (USA) Edward O. Wilson, Pellegrino University Professor, Paul D. Boyer, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry (USA) Richard Leakey, author, paleo-anthropologist (Kenya) Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University Mario Bunge, Frothingham Professor of Foundations and Jean-Marie Lehn, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry (France) (USA) Philosophy of Science, McGill University (Canada) Elizabeth Loftus, professor, University of California/Irvine Jean-Pierre Changeux, Collège de France, Institut (USA) Pasteur, Académie des Sciences (France) José Leite Lopes, director, Centro Brasileiro de Patricia Smith Churchland, professor of philosophy, Pesquisas Fisicas (Brazil) University of California at San Diego; adjunct pro- Adam Michnik, historian, political writer, cofounder of KOR fessor, Salk Institute for Biological Studies (USA/ (Workers’ Defense Committee) (Poland) Canada) Jonathan Miller, OBE, theater and film director, physician (UK) Richard Dawkins, author Taslima Nasrin, author, physician, social critic José M.R. Delgado, professor and chair, Department of (Bangladesh) Neuropsychology, University of Madrid (Spain) Elaine Pagels, Harrington Spear Paine Professor of Daniel C. Dennett, director of the Center for Cognitive Religion, Princeton University (USA) Studies, Tufts University (USA) Jean-Claude Pecker, professor emeritus of astrophysics, Jean Dommanget, Belgian Royal Observatory (Belgium) Collège de France, Académie des Sciences (France) Ann Druyan, author, lecturer, producer (USA) Steven Pinker, Harvard Col. Prof. and Johnstone Family Umberto Eco, novelist, semiotician, University of Prof. in Department of Psychology, Harvard University Bologna (Italy) (USA) Luc Ferry, professor of philosophy, Sorbonne University Dennis Razis, medical oncologist, “Hygeia” Diagnos­tic & and University of Caen (France) Therapeutic Center of Athens S.A. (Greece) Yves Galifret, professor emeritus of neurophysiology, Marcel Roche, permanent delegate to UNESCO from Université Pierre and Marie Curie; general secretary of Venezuela (Venezuela) l’Union Rationaliste (France) Salman Rushdie, author, Massachusetts Institute of Johan Galtung, professor of sociology, University of Oslo Technology (USA) (Norway) Fernando Savater, philosophy educator (Spain) Murray Gell-Mann, Nobel Laureate; professor of physics, Peter Singer, DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the California Institute of Technology (USA) University Center for Human Values, Princeton Rebecca Goldstein, philosopher and author (USA) University (USA) Adolf Grünbaum, Andrew Mellon Professor of Philosophy­ Jens C. Skou, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry (Denmark) of Science, University of Pittsburgh (USA) J.J.C. Smart, professor emeritus of philosophy, Jürgen Habermas, professor of philosophy, University of Australian National University (Australia)