You know what would be awesome?

If you've been following this blog or any part of the atheosphere lately, you know that famous atheist Richard Dawkins has recently taken to throwing rocks at the hornet's nest he helped build. (In case you've been living in a cave with no wifi, start here and here for some background).

His latest entertaining spectacle was to accuse Adam Lee of lying in his piece in the Gaurdian. The article consists of reprinting a bunch of stuff Dawkins posted, framed by Adam Lee's opinion that Dawkins's behavior is bad for the atheist movement. It's not even necessary debunk the accusation of lying -- it doesn't even make sense. It's like Dawkins has crossed the line from merely displaying a glaring blind spot to seriously giving the impression that he's losing his marbles.

But you know what would be awesome?

Imagine Dawkins posts something even more bizarre tomorrow. Then he posts something even more bizarre the next day. Then he waits a week or two for it to percolate through the community and then announces:

It was all a test. I wanted to see whether my fans really embrace critical thinking. I wanted to see, given a choice between loyalty to me personally and loyalty to the ideals I stand for, who would choose which one.

Win-win for Feminism!!

When I was writing my post the other day on the grand reunification of the feminist movement, I was kind of wondering what it looks like from the other side's perspective. And I think this piece by Amanda Marcotte "There Is No Such Thing as Radical Feminism Anymore" perhaps captures it.

It's very short, so go read it and come back.

I agree essentially with Marcotte's points. I take issue with her refusal to call the anti-trans radical feminists by their chosen name. They still exist, and they still call themselves radical feminists -- they were recently profiled in the New Yorker. And, more to the point, they really are one modern splinter of the radical feminist movement of the 60's and 70's. To deny them that name is a little like saying that the FLDS have no business calling themselves Mormon.

On the other hand, Marcotte is totally right that those radical feminists are not anywhere near the mainstream of the feminist movement. One can certainly argue that they aren't the true intellectual heirs of the earlier radical feminists. Marcotte is also totally right that the original radical feminists brought us a lot of fantastic ideas that are now completely mainstream, at the heart of current feminist thought:

It was not enough to pass the ERA or legalize abortion, they believed, but we should also talk about cultural issues, such as misogyny, objectification, rape, and domestic violence.

Personally, I can't help but feel like "Yay, my team won!!" As I wrote the other day, on the issues I cared about, my position won the mainstream, and sex-positive feminism succeeded in making itself irrelevant.

But the other side won, too. Their bad ideas, like trans-women not deserving to be seen as women, plus the items I mentioned the other day, have been stripped off and shunted to the margins, and their good ideas have won the mainstream of feminist thought. They also succeeded in making themselves irrelevant as a separate movement.

It's the textbook example of a win-win situation.

Stuff the atheists can learn from the feminists!

Whatever happened to sex-positive vs. sex-negative feminism?

Back when I was in college and grad school, I thought there was a significant division within the feminist movement over the question of whether sex is good or bad for women. As I've written, my thoughts on this division have evolved, and it's not just me. The division has disappeared to such a degree that when I was writing my latest post on Saturday, I started wondering whether it ever really was a thing. Was I just hallucinating?

So I got out some of my old feminist books off the shelf, and confirmed that, no, I was not hallucinating. I think the following statement from Ariel Levy in the 20th anniversary edition of Andrea Dworkin's Intercourse kind of sums it up:

With the possible exception of the Shakers, it is difficult to think of an American movement that has failed more spectacularly than antipornography feminism. In the late 1970's, when a prominent faction of the women's liberation movement -- including Brownmiller, Dworkin, Steinem, Morgan, Audrey Lourde, the writer Grace Paley, and the poet Adrienne Rich -- turned their attention to fighting pornography, porn was still something marginalized, as opposed to what it is now: a source of inspiration for all of popular culture. [...] If the antiporn crusade was a losing battle, it was also a costly one: it divided, some would say destroyed, the women's movement. The term "prosex feminist" was coined by women who wanted to distance themselves from the antiporn faction.

The idea was that sexually explicit words and images created for the express purpose of arousal are inherently harmful to women. Not just abuses within the porn industry or negative messages in some types of porn, but the whole kit-and-kaboodle, on principle. It supposedly caused rape. This theory was part of the mainstream of feminist thought as recently as 2006 when I wrote my blog entries "A feminist in favor of porn" and "yes means yes".

One problem with the "porn causes rape" claim is that there was never any evidence to back it up. And, as I explained in "porn and me", that inspired some people to claim that instead of insisting on evidence, we should value supposedly female types of reasoning like intuition or some other such rot -- which made me hate the antiporn feminists all the more.

Then there was this little problem with antiporn crusader Andrea Dworkin muddying the waters on the definition of rape (as I discussed here). In the early days of the Internet, I had the misfortune of getting into a dispute with a feminist who claimed that heterosexual sexual intercourse is inherently degrading to women -- that, regardless of her desire or consent, the mere act of a penis penetrating a vagina is psychologically harmful to the vagina-haver -- and cited Dworkin as proof that this is "the feminist position." I assume this is a misrepresentation of whatever Dworkin said, but the experience reinforced my impression that Dworkin has had a very harmful impact on feminist thought.

As a consequence, people like me ended up going too far in the other direction. As recently as ten years ago, I would have told you that I don't think that feminists should focus on issues like date rape or misogyny. I would have given some reasonable-sounding reasons for this, but looking back, I think it was more a question of the fact that those issues were claimed by Catherine MacKinnon, Andrea Dworkin, and their fans -- and, frankly, I didn't want to be in the same movement with those guys.

But then what happened?

With the rise of the Internet and the corresponding rise in instant access to all sorts of content, the evidence became overwhelming that sexually explicit imagery for the purpose of arousal is not inherently harmful to women -- and, in particular, it does not cause rape. The idea that porn causes rape dropped completely out of the mainstream of feminist thought.

One of the awesome things about this development is that it demonstrates quite conclusively that basing one's conclusions on evidence is a female type of reasoning! The other awesome part is that we don't have feminists debating about whether sex is good or bad across the board -- we've realigned along the idea that consent and autonomous choice are the measures of whether a given sex act is good or bad. And now we're mostly all friends again.

Last Saturday morning I wrote about how making women feel safe and welcome in the atheist movement actually increases the probability of a given straight male atheist getting (consensually) laid. I want to add the disclaimer that that's not the reason why women should be included in the atheist movement. Women should be included in the atheist movement because women are people too, and can contribute to and benefit from the movement just like any other people. However, since the sexists were claiming that the feminists are just a bunch of man-hating prudes, I wanted to make it clear that that's not true. Helping guys get consensual sex is not the point of feminism, however it is a noteworthy side-effect.

Unfortunately, since Saturday morning, Richard Dawkins's descent into taking leave of his critical thinking skills has only gotten more appalling (see these links). He has decided that his new battle is to make sure we lady atheists know our place in the atheist movement.

Sam Harris also got into the act, posting a defense of his claim that critical thinking is a guy thing. Harris surprises me less than Dawkins. Sam Harris is the guy who claimed that guns are on balance beneficial to women, including in situations of domestic violence. He even posted on his FAQ that his debating opponent's case was based on evidence that shows the opposite, yet, instead of wondering (and researching) why that might be, he continued to repeat his initial reasoning for his original (debunked) assertion. That's not how critical thinking works. A similar thing happened when Harris debated a security expert over his idea that airport security should intentionally adopt a policy of racially profiling people who "look like Muslims." Basically the biggest mystery is how this clown got on the stage in the first place.

Does the arc of history bend towards justice? In general, not necessarily. But the atheist movement -- with its love of the scientific method in all its error-correcting glory -- is a different story. The "Men's Rights Activists" that are currently such a blight on our movement...? Their influence will decline and vanish, even if some of our most popular big names choose to sign onto Team Sexism.

In the worst-cast scenario, Richard Dawkins will do about a decade's worth of damage to the atheist movement he helped to create -- and he will flush his own legacy down the toilet in the process. (Are these tweets really what you want to be remembered for, Mr. Dawkins? Because that's the direction you're heading...)

This should be an interesting ride.

Atheism and ruining it for everybody!!

After this latest round of sexy sexism in the atheist community, I've decided it's time for me to weigh in.

I hope that you recall that I'm the lady who advocates having sex on the first date. I am enthusiastically sex-positive. And today I would like to remind you that free love only thrives in an atmosphere where there is a healthy respect for consent.

Back when I was young and cute (before becoming a (happily married) old lady), I would have been more than happy to go to atheist conferences with the express intention of hooking up. And it is the people who are in favor of clear anti-harassment policies at conferences that make that sort of thing possible. I'm sorry to have to explain something that should be a no-brainer, but just because a chick is looking for NSA sex, it doesn't mean that she wants to be harassed or raped by whichever guy sees her first.

If you are a straight guy looking for a little fun and love, the rapists and rape apologists are not doing you a favor. Quite the opposite. Those guys are telling women: "If you wear that, if you get drunk, if you flirt at a conference -- then it's your own fault if you get raped." And when that's the message that wins the day, then that smart, hot, fun girl you might have met at that conference...? She won't be there. She's smart enough not to go.

Richard Dawkins in particular has been putting his foot in his mouth lately with idiotic distinctions. ("Date rape is bad. Stranger rape at knifepoint is worse. If you think that's an endorsement of date rape, go away and learn how to think.") Well, let me make one of my own:

Personally, I have never been raped. I have had an ex-boyfriend lock me in an apartment, hold a knife to my throat, and threaten to kill me (see here). Given the choice between the two, I'd say I would have preferred to have been "just" raped. (And, by the same token, I'm pretty damn glad it didn't happen in the US where the equivalent guy would have had a gun -- in which case I probably wouldn't be here typing this today.) But those aren't the choices. It's not like there's one camp that says, "Oh, I would never rape a woman -- sure I like to mutilate and kill them, but not rape them," and the other says, "Oh, would never hurt a woman -- I just like to non-violently harass and rape them." The real two camps are the people see women as autonomous humans and those that don't.

In my situation, it wasn't rape, but it was the same damn thing. It was a question of a man being led to believe that if a woman won't be with him in the way he wants, then he's perfectly justified (as man) in making her do what he wants. She has no business making such decisions for herself.

It is the rapists and rape apologists who say stupid shit like "You should be glad he only raped you -- he might have killed you and cut you up in little pieces." Because those were his options. A normal person says something more like, "Wow, I'm sorry you had any contact at all with that criminal -- he needs to be stopped before he rapes again, or worse."

As far as Dawkins is concerned, I don't think he is for or against hearing more diverse perspectives in the atheist movement. I think it's simply a subject he's never has any reason to think deeply about, and, consequently, unsurprisingly, he has nothing insightful to say on the subject. Unfortunately, because he's the famous guy, he gets quoted on it, and his voice is amplified above the voices of people who actually have expertise and interesting things to say about it.

I agree with Terry Firma that it would be in Dawkins's own interest if somebody would succeed in persuading him to stay the hell away from Twitter. I was thinking that two twitter scandals earlier. But I'm less in agreement about this point Terry made:

It’s not a breakdown of his intellect, which is intact. Rather, Dawkins seems to suffer from an extreme form of tone-deafness. It’s almost as if Star Trek‘s Mr. Spock is modeled after him: cool, rational, detached, and faintly amused by the emotional human fools with whom he is forced to interact.

I think that is an insult to Mr. Spock, who is one of the most awesome fictional characters of all time. I mean, Spock might say insensitive things when asked, but he would have the good sense not to go out of his way to broadcast his random stupid musings.

I think Dawkins's real problem is a debilitating case of "I shit gold" syndrome. After being worshiped for such a long time by so many smart people, he's come to believe that any idea that pops into his head must be made of gold. It has severely compromised his ability to critically analyse his own thoughts and actions, which is unfortunate because (not just criticism, but) self-criticism should be one of the most highly regarded virtues in our movement.

Coincidentally, I should be going to see Dawkins in person today. He's here in Zürich giving a lecture at the Denkfest -- friends of mine will be in attendance. And because I want to make friends with the Zürich Freethinkers (who, I think, organized the thing), I am very hesitant to be typing this. I don't want to be "the difficult one" like I was back in church, many years ago. Yet, I also don't want my attendance to be registered as a vote for "we have to get somebody like Dawkins because he brings in the audience and the money." Therefore, I will be attending tomorrow. I am totally in favor of and impressed by everything about this conference except for the fact that it was billed as "RICHARD DAWKINS!!!! and some other people..."

I hope the local freethinkers will be willing to forgive me for this. I'm sure they are already well aware of how herding cats works. We mean well, but we are simply never going to all get in line.

But hopefully our movement is capable of self-reflection and learning.

The only thing worse than people talking about you is people not talking about you...

My mom used to say that anyway -- and that's the attitude I'm taking towards some news I discovered the other day. Apparently there's a new journal of Mormon Apologetics, and they devoted some space in their inaugural issue to calling my blogs "childish rubbish" and "bit raunchy and as lacking intellectual content."

Hard to believe they bother to publish claims like that about little ol' me? Well, you can read all about it on my latest Main Street Plaza post.

And -- for those of you who aren't interested in such frivolity -- I uploaded another episode of the Star Trek series I starred in!!! This is a funny one involving a Tholian plot to steal my pet hamster:

I believe in science and logic -- but I like to make things up.

Today I have a few more scenes from the amusing adventure of atheist parenting!

My kids made some good friends at summer camp. Somewhat surprisingly, 8-year-old Léo told us that his new friend (an 8-year-old girl) asked him whether he'd read the Bible! Surprising because this is Europe -- it's not like we sent him to Summer Camp in South Carolina or something.

Anyway, Léo recounted that he told his friend that he doesn't believe in God, but that it's OK for friends to believe different things. To give examples of things people might believe in, Léo asked the girl whether she believes in monsters, and she said she does. Also Santa Claus. This was another point that demonstrated for Leo that it's OK for friends to believe in different things because one of Léo's best friends at school (in Zürich) also believes in Santa Claus. I'm getting this second-hand from an 8-year-old, so the details are a little vague, but Leo seemed to indicate that he's always discreet with his friends with respect to not insisting too much that Santa Claus is just pretend.

My husband asked Nico what he believes in, and Nico immediately said he believes in science and logic. That's the point where you might not believe us that we're not brainwashing our own kids -- but he's only 9. He'll have plenty of opportunity to think for himself.

Then my husband asked Léo what he believes in, and -- after thinking a bit -- said he didn't want to say. Actually, quite a good answer for someone who's only 8. Nico prompted Léo to say he believes in science and logic, and Léo answered with the above quote: "I believe in science and logic -- but I like to make things up." So true! These are imaginative little guys who are always inventing stories and jokes!

Speed of Lightning! Roar of Thunder!

It's a bird! It's a plane! It's a frog!

To all those who are younger than Gen-X, please excuse the obscure reference to the "Underdog" theme song. ;)

If you follow the atheosphere like I do, you probably already know that Camp Quest -- that fun science-not-Bible Summer camp for kids -- needs some funds. And, to make the fund-raising more interesting, they decided to turn it into a competition between PZ Myers and a team of other cool atheist bloggers. In round 1, PZ totally wiped the floor with the competition, so some more cool underdogs signed on.

Now, as fond as I am of PZ (I met him in person and even included the photo of our radio interview together in my masthead if you look closely), I am compelled by some mysterious human compulsion to support Team Underdog. (Also note: Team PZ doesn't need my help, but I qualify for Team Underdog.) Hence I've added the donate widget to my sidebar =>

And remember, it's not just about beating PZ (and watching Hemant shave off PZ's beard). It's a great cause! As much as I loved LDS girls' camp as a kid, I wish I could have gone to something like this!! I'm planning to send my own kids as soon as feasible.

Exactly!!

You remember my usual reaction when people of faith start accusing atheism of being a "faith"-based belief or a "religion"?

Well, Jesus and Mo have now made the same point in comic form:



(Hat tip too many tribbles.)

Blog Retrospective: Religion & Atheism!

Of course, Mormonism isn't the only religion out there! Sometimes I like to discuss all religions and none:

First of all, there's another religion that's a part of our family religious heritage: Catholicism. My husband is a cultural Catholic in about the same way that I'm a cultural Mormon. So, naturally, we took our kids to Lourdes and had lots of amusing adventures there!

Non-belief doesn't obligate you to give up your holiday traditions (unless you want to), as I've discussed on Easter and Christmas -- including a list of Merry secular carols!

As for Christianity in general, I have to admit I'm not too pleased with it. It seems to inspire some disastrously short-sighted politics, and I'm not convinced you can do much better when saddled with the morals of the Bible. And -- as far-fetched as Mormonism's story seems -- it annoys me to see Christians applying a double-standard of evidence when it comes to the Jesus story. (Their position on the death penalty is also a little counter-intuitive.) Ultimately, I think polytheism makes more logical sense than monotheism+omnipotence. (Spock and Harry Potter also make a good showing.)

Sometimes the believers indicate that they don't think very highly of faith/religion, either, when they try to discredit atheism by calling atheism a faith or a religion.


That said -- even if we disagree -- I think it's important to get along and make a real effort to understand one another. As I explained in a couple of parables about belief, just because we disagree doesn't mean I think you're stupid. And when it comes to personal relationships, it's generally not constructive to harass and harangue people about how wrong you think their beliefs are. Interfaith relationships can be a challenge, as I discussed in "He has his faults, such as being a perverted-democrat-atheist, but....

Even politically, I think that fighting for a shared secular space is more constructive than trying to stop religion (which led to my joke about being a sniveling milquetoast).

Of course, being an atheist isn't all fun and games. That whole death thing is a bit of a drawback. Plus, we're so despised that sometimes even the other out groups shun us. So it's not easy to be "out". Are you? ;^)

Poor Dawkins!

Another kind of nonbeliever in the popular imagination is the arrogant professor, exemplified Richard Dawkins. Too smart for his own good, this kind of atheist talks down you, and nobody likes a smarty pants.

-- MoHoHawaii

I don't want to pick on my friend MoHoHawaii for writing the above -- he wasn't giving his personal judgment of Richard Dawkins, he was merely reporting on a popular view of Prof. Dawkins.

But what did Dawkins ever do to get this reputation?

Well, I've developed a new crazy theory about it!

It came to me while watching these Symphony of Science videos with my kids:



See that part around 2:44? Where he says "Science replaces private prejudice with public verifiable evidence"? That's a great quote, but (is this just my imagination?) it looks like he's sneering when he says it.

You should be jumping for joy when you say that!! Evaluating your own biases is one of the most difficult problems that humans face on a daily basis. That we have an effective tool to help us work on that problem -- that's fantastic!

Of course, maybe I'm just being too hard on Richard Dawkins. After all, Jill Tarter also had a great quote in that song ("The story of humans is the story of ideas that shine light into dark corners"), and she didn't smile either.

But now compare to my favorite of the Symphony of Science songs:



Of course I'm huge fan of David Attenborough. How could anybody not like that guy?

The kids say their favorite song in the series is still the first one, the "galaxy rise" song:



That one is my second-favorite. :D

Then he told his other grandma that God doesn't exist...

Our six-month stay in the U.S. is over, but we're not quite home yet. On our way back to Switzerland we're spending a few days with my husband's family in Holland. (My husband is French, but his mom is originally from Holland, and she's moved back to Holland to be near her siblings.)

I don't even know how the subject came up. I was reading a book (I know: bad, anti-social me...) when I hear my husband explain, "It's like 'God'." (I'm translating)
Mother-in-Law: Oh, you've talked to him about that?
Nico's dad: It came up during the trip.
MiL: (to Nico) You see, Nico, some people believe that God exists, and some people believe that God doesn't exist.
Nico: OK, well, I'm one of the people who thinks God doesn't exist.
MiL: That's OK, but your grandma believes that God exists.
Nico: OK.

And that was the end of it. As I explained earlier, we haven't really discussed the subject with our kids, but I imagine we will once we get back home. Leo hasn't shown any interest in the question -- too busy building things out of Legos.

How do you know you exist?

Both of my kids have had some interesting existential questions this past week! Let's start with 6-year-old Leo:

When cuddling for bed, Leo noticed a strange shadow on the ceiling.
me: Maybe it's a ghost.
Leo: No, it can't be a ghost. Ghosts are invisible, and they don't exist, and light goes through them so they don't cast a shadow.
me: Fair enough.

Again, Leo was telling me about things that exist and don't exist...
me: Do you exist?
Leo: Of course!
me: How do you know you exist?
Leo: What?
me: How do you know you exist?
Leo: Look at me! I'm right here!
me: Fair enough.
Leo: But before you borned me, before I grew in your tummy, I didn't exist.

Then came 8-year-old-Nico's turn:

As soon as my husband discovered that David Attenborough had a new documentary out (Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life), he immediately ordered it. Nico asked who Charles Darwin was, and my husband suggested we watch the movie and find out!

The next morning, Nico wanted to watch the documentary again. During the intro, I repeated "Charles Darwin" (mimicking the English accent), and then Nico did me one better by dramatically saying "Charles Darwin -- the guy who proved that God doesn't exist."

That had me laughing -- the documentary certainly doesn't say that! However, you can kind of see how he might get that out of it. David Attenborough reads part of the creation story from Genesis and explains that for thousands of years most of Europe thought it was an accurate description of how animals came to be. Little by little, the evidence started to pile up (geology, transitional forms, genetics, plate tectonics) showing that the Genesis account is quite wrong. You can't really tell Darwin's story completely without mentioning the reaction by defenders of the faith, but the documentary leaves the conclusion open with respect to the existence of God.

You may recall way back here that we don't really talk about God much with our kids. Since that post, Nico has started to form his own ideas about what God is from different movies. He's an interesting character in Monty Python's "Holy Grail" -- plus Nico has learned that the planets are named after different "gods," but we haven't really discussed it.

Then, in one of the hotels on our road trip to Minnesota (we just arrived today), Nico found The Holy Bible! He was so amazed -- it's the same book that David Attenborough was reading! What a rare find!
me: Actually, Nico, it's not rare at all. They're everywhere. It's the best selling book of the year, every year.
Nico: Why?
me: They're for people who believe in God.

That shocked Nico quite a bit, and he was further shocked when we explained to him that his grandparents -- who we were on our way to visit -- believe in God. Nico immediately insisted that he had to tell them that God doesn't exist! (Yikes! That's just we need for our family Christmas visit...)

So we explained to Nico that it is very important not to tell the other other family members that God doesn't exist because if they want to believe in God, they can just go right ahead and believe in God. And if they want to believe that Christmas is God's birthday (even though it isn't) they can go right ahead and believe that as well. Fortunately Nico agreed that we'd just let them believe what they want.

The whole family is together for Christmas for the first time in nearly a decade -- I expect it will be a lot of fun! Wish me luck, though.

Unrequited? Why the atheists love the gay more than vice-versa...

I've been thinking about this question ever since I read Greta Christina's post on being an atheist in the queer community. I don't mean this to be a question of blame -- quite the opposite. I'd kind of like to understand the situation better, in order to avoid unfair expectations.

Reason #1: taking back one's faith

I suspect that there's a higher proportion of atheism in the queer population than in the general population -- that is, gay people are more likely to be atheist than straight people. You're more likely to question (and then follow those questions all the way to atheism) if God-belief isn't working for you. And being repeatedly told that God thinks you're an abomination would be a pretty strong motivation to ask yourself, "Wait a minute -- Who is this God dude anyway?"

But, really, that's the only link with atheism for the gay folks, and not everyone who questions God's existence winds up disbelieving. Some gay people take great comfort in their faith and in their traditions, and would rather question the assumption that God doesn't love them the way they are. For such people, to embrace the atheists would be like granting that the homophobes are the true people of faith, and are the ones who are qualified to pronounce on what God likes and doesn't like (in particular, homosexuality). It's too much like saying, "OK, if God were to exist, then you're right, He would hate me," which a lot of gay people aren't ready to grant.

Reason #2: goal alignment

Even if the gay people's needs don't line up exactly with the atheists, the common goals in the opposite direction couldn't be more obvious. Here's a case of harmful (discriminatory) laws getting passed -- based solely on religious justification, with no objective reasoning to back them up. That is exactly the sort of thing that is of most concern to atheists as a group.

Reason #3: visibility

The GLBT community got out there and said "We're here! We're queer! Get used to it." So now the atheists (like everybody else) are used it. With a little more visibility, people will start to get used to the atheists as well. (Though we don't have a good rhyme... Any ideas?)

Reason #3: the popularity ladder

Gay people are currently more accepted by the general population. Sure, they're almost as despised as the atheists, but that little difference counts for quite a lot when you're near the bottom of the popularity ladder.

This isn't an atheist/gay thing -- it's human nature in general. You don't improve your popularity by hanging out with the folks who are even more nerdy than yourself, you improve your popularity by telling those above you on the social ladder that you're like them, and join them in looking down on someone else. I touched on the personal-life version of this in the novella Young Women's, but it's also standard fare within and among disadvantaged groups...

Other ideas?

My "Out at Work" History: Polite or Chicken?

In the comments of my previous post, Lorry said, "In Denmark, religion never comes up. My husband doesn't even know if his own twin sister believes in God. No one talks about it. Ever. So I can identify with this post.", while John Evo said, "Even some of the most vocal bloggers are, in REAL life, quite silent about the fact that they carry no superstitions - some even lie about it and simply parrot the name of whatever religion they were raised in."

That's essentially why I wrote that post to begin with -- I'm trying to figure out which one I am. In my case, if someone asks my religion, I do not hesitate: I'm an atheist who was raised Mormon. But it seems like I've been practicing a bit of a "don't ask, don't tell" policy...

You be the judge. Here's my professional history in a nutshell:

• In college, attending BYU, I was completely in the closet about my disbelief. Frankly, I didn't want to be expelled and have BYU refuse to transfer my credits. Long before it happened to Chad Hardy, it was no secret that that was the policy.


• In grad school -- as I explained in how I came to sympathize with the Mormons -- the first question after “What’s your name?” is “Where’d you get your undergraduate degree?” In the Math department (at Rutgers), they posted a list of all the new grad students along with the name of the university each came from. So I was obliged to explain to everybody. “Yes, I went to BYU. No, I didn’t want to go there. Yes, I was raised Mormon. No, I don’t believe in it.” That was cool!!! I had an excuse to tell everyone all my funny stories about growing up Mormon without ever being the one who was impolite enough to bring it up. One Christian guy displayed a pamphlet called "A Christian's Response to Homosexuality" in on his desk in view of his out-Lesbian office-mate, and everybody talked about the appropriateness (or not) of that.


• At my first real job (as a programmer in NJ), a Muslim colleague gave me a card inviting me to her Sunni Muslim center, which I politely declined. Another Muslim colleague was shocked by anecdotes that involved social drinking. An Orthodox Jewish colleague refused to shake my hand. A Lutheran Colleague didn't have any peculiar restrictions but managed to bring up his Lutheranism pretty frequently anyway. I was the junior member of the team and said nothing about the subject.


• My second job was at a little dot-com startup back when all you needed to get investors on board were an idea and a few slides (before the dot-com bust of 2000). All of my colleagues were from India. They were from all over India, and was curious to hear about all of the cultural differences among the different areas. Many of them were vegetarian and/or did strange fasts like eating only fruits and nuts one day per week. At my request, they brought me along to a Hindi movie and (on another occasion) to their Diwali service. It was really quite fascinating. Belief in God (or gods) per se didn't really come up much except when I was talking about France (being engaged to a Frenchman and all). When I mentioned that the French almost never go to church, a Hindu colleague asked, "But when do they pray?" My reply: "They don't."


• My third job was almost entirely telecommuting, so I had very little casual contact with my colleagues. This actually presented real problems for communication and collaboriation on projects, so I've tried to avoid excessive telecommuting since then.


• At my fourth job, I'd started getting involved with Mormon-related discussions online, so I kind of wanted to talk to my colleagues about it, but still I didn't bring it up. As far as I could tell, nobody in the whole company (of a few hundred people) was religious at all. The closest thing to a display of ideology was one guy in another department who put up a rainbow flag in his personal work area. One colleague told me how shocked he was when he saw a documentary about G.W.B. and how much he brought God into public policy. Said my colleague, "Here in France, we have a tradition of separation of church and state..." I sadly replied, "We used to have that too!" On another occasion, a colleague was telling someone a funny story, and I caught just the end bit where he recounted saying to someone "Écoute, dieu n'existe pas [Listen, God does not exist]". I caught his eye and smiled, but didn't say anything (because he was talking to someone else).


• My fifth job was fairly brief (I had to quit when I moved to Switzerland), but I got in one conversation about religion. My family took a trip to Lourdes -- the #1 world Catholic pilgrimage spot -- so I was careful to explain that it wasn't a pilgrimage, it's just that my husband's aunt is a nun. A colleague told me his story of visiting Lourdes when he was a kid, in Catechism. The healthy push the sick (in special wheelchairs of Lourdes) to the healing waters to bathe. An endless procession of the dreadfully ill marinate in the miraculous pool from morning until night. Then it's your turn to get in. "That you don't get sick from it -- that's the miracle!" he said.


• And that brings me up to my present job. One colleague volunteered that he'd voted in favor of gay marriage when it came up in a Swiss referendum. This came up because another colleague was planning to visit some gay married friends on vacation. (Both of these colleagues are straight guys.) I've hinted about being atheist-friendly, and one colleague has hinted back. He lent me his disc of Randy Newman's Faust, and pointed out specifically that Randy Newman (who wrote it and plays the devil) is an atheist. I'm listening to it now -- not bad. :D

So what do you think?

It would be fun if some of you -- atheist or not -- would take this as a meme! I'm curious about how my real-life "out at work" experience compares to others.

Out (as atheist) at work?

The news just keeps coming in about the rise of atheism, even in the good ol' U.S.A.! The latest research shows that the people who actively self-identify as atheist or agnostic now outnumber Mormons (1.6% of the population vs. 1.4% of the population). And if you count people who are technically atheist (don't actively believe in the existence of God, but don't call themselves atheists), we're 12% of the population!

So why is it that the Mormons can count senators, governors, even serious presidential contenders among their ranks? While non-believers get so little respect that people are astonished when the president takes one second to acknowledge their existence?

My guess is that a lot of it has to do with lack of organization and lack of geographical grouping. (Also, perhaps, the lack of the special right to tax-free political organizing that the religions enjoy.) But, since we all know that atheist is the new gay (see here), let's take a page from the gay and say it's visibility.

Sure you can put the Dawkins "A" on your blog and/or join Mojoey's atheist blogroll, but who are the people most likely to read your atheist blog? That's right -- your fellow atheists. It seems like it would be good to be "out" in real life. But this is where we're at a big disadvantage: there's practically no reason for it to come up in conversation!

Compare to the gay example. Even if you don't put a picture of your spouse on your desk -- even if miraculously nobody ever asks you about your home life or what you did over the weekend -- eventually your family is going to get invited to the company picnic. And that will clue in your colleagues. (Wait a minute... your S.O. is a woman, just like you.... What...? Oh, I get it...)

Religion is the same way -- it comes up naturally. "Why do I do a partial fast once a week? Because I'm a Hindu." "Why don't I ever drink coffee? Because I'm a Mormon." "Why won't I shake your hand? Because I'm an Orthodox Jew and you're a woman." (And, yes, I have heard that last one from a colleague at work...)

But atheism? It's just not the same! If religion doesn't happen to come up, then it seems inappropriate to bring it up. The best I've done so far is to wish my colleagues a "Happy Darwin Day" on Darwin's recent 200th birthday. The one replied "Oh, I believe in 'Intelligent Design' -- Hahahahaha!!" and the other one is always cracking irreverent jokes about his Baptist upbringing.

Nevermind, they're probably already atheists anyway...

Carnival of the Godless #98

Welcome to the 98th bi-weekly Carnival of the Godless!!!

I've gathered up a fantastic assortment of god-free thought for you, so let's dig in!

Science

Michael Meadon points out that going out of your way to bring up atheism when teaching about evolution isn't just bad strategy, it's bad pedagogy. Evolution doesn't require "non-existence of God" as a hypothesis, so (hardcore atheist and Dawkins fan) Meadon disagrees with Dawkins' approach of taking the incompatibility of theism and science for granted when discussing evolution with students in a science class. Meanwhile some Christians make a counter-claim that evolution is, in fact, at odds with "naturalism." If that leaves you going "Wha...? What are you talking about?" (since naturalism can mean a lot of different things, including nudism), then check out Jared's hilarious response!

A whole lot of religious people seem to think that belief in God requires disproving evolution. The frustrating part is trying to debate people who don't have the faintest clue about how evolution works (or how science itself works, for that matter). Norman Doering asks where do you even begin with people who seriously think that evolution predicts the existence of a crocoduck? At the end of his article, though, he links to a great place to begin: Berkeley's Understanding Evolution website which provides resources for a fun and painless introduction to evolution, including a fascinating article about Tiktaalik explaining what evolution predicts about transitional forms like the fishy ancestors of land animals. Similarly, Maria Salva provides a clear and eloquent explanation of how "gaps" are really just opportunities to learn more.

Next we have the prizewinner for "most creative use of ignorance about science": theists who think Pangaea is described in the Bible. On Open Threat we find a patient explanation of why believing that Pangaea suddenly split into separate continents a few thousand years ago (during the "days of Peleg") is a good deal crazier than just rejecting the theory of plate tectonics entirely. In a similar vein, Bing explains Dinesh D'Souza's misconceptions about prehistoric humans, and Naon Tiotami tackles the "Answers in Genesis" claims that car evolution disproves evolution of living things.

Of course there are other approaches. Andrew Bernardin suggests a counter-claim that the "Theory of Intelligent Design" predicts the existence of flying fruit.

Miller explains why reductionism (everything can ultimately be explained by its constituent parts) doesn't imply that complex objects don't exist. So does Allah read thoughts from people's hearts, as it says in the Koran? Bobby is not convinced.

Kids

As the Chaplain explains, God is horribly incompetent as a babysitter. Similarly Archvillain is none too impressed with God's record on protecting kids.

In addition to the kids He allows to die, if you think that He installs a soul at the moment when the sperm fertilizes the egg, then He's also the ultimate abortionist, as discussed by Ari.

Ron Britton reports about a pastor who holds an annual week-long crusade that involves arrangements with the local public schools to let the kids out during the middle of the school day to attend his church. Oh, and gloats over the death of a lawyer who had been preventing this unconstitutional activity in one town. Could be worse for the kids, I guess – could be Jesus Camp (reviewed by Ron Gold).

Politics

The top news story is that the Democratic National Convention has decided to add an "interfaith" religious service for the first time ever. To show how inclusive they are, they've made it "interfaith" to include everybody! Well, everybody who counts, that is. In an egregious and obvious display of Machiavellian strategy, the Democratic Party has noted that those people who think GWB's grand public piety show was a part of problem in the last eight years – they're sure as hell not going to desert the Democrats now. So why not throw them to the wolves and take a page from Mitt Romney, pretending that America's political discourse is a "symphony of faith"? If you're displeased by the DNC's cynical political pandering to organized religion, Vjack has provided info on how to get your voice heard here. On the other hand, if you're confused about this issue, Diana Hsieh gives a concise explanation of what our secular constitution has to say about bringing religion into government.

It's not clear who the Democrats are hoping to impress, given that the people who favor religious discrimination are currently praying that Obama's speech will be rained out as discussed by Doctor Biobrain.

The Republicans have their religion problems too. Postman channels God to have a little chat with McCain about his treatment of veterans, and the Whited Sepulchre passes along a message from a Republican politician that Jews (like Lieberman) don't believe in Jesus!

And, in world politics, Jeffrey Stingerstein explains that a theocracy that practices execution by stoning can't be trusted with nuclear weapons.

Philosophy

Let's start with the distance between what's true and what you'd like to believe. Irradiatus talks about the difficulty of seeing all of humanity "no more than blips of energy in an inconsequential cosmic blink." Hank Fox takes it a step further by asking what to say to a dying grandmother about meaning and human existence.

Then, on the other side of the coin, PhillyChief describes inventing excuses to justify belief in God. (The Exterminator has compiled some funny ones as well.) If unanswered (and unanswerable) questions get in the way of believing what you want to believe, you can always just call the problem a "divine mystery" and put it on the shelf (to be ignored), as Greta Christina explains in The Problem of Unfishiness. Then Larryniven takes a more serious, philosophical approach to deciding which beliefs are justified.

And Confused Liberal discusses the implications of atheism with respect to moral relativism. On the other hand, Ian explains that God's universal morals may well be worse.

Community and Strategy

The Amiable Atheist talks about the value of keeping the discussion civil when representing atheism. For example, LEECR7 describes a strange (but ultimately civil) highway encounter provoked by the Darwin fish on her car.

A Division by Zer0 has done some real work to help out the online atheist community, first setting up a tool that will allow you read a few top posts from all over Mojoey's 700+ strong atheist blogroll. Apparently for each blog it helps you find that blog's most popular posts. I'll probably try to use this one since I'd like to spend some of my blog-reading time on the various atheist blogs outside the few hundred blogs I've subscribed to, but it's a daunting task to know where to start. DB0 has also compiled a convenient list of resources for atheist bloggers.

As a supplement, I'll mention one item that didn't get included on that list: Social Rank's Challenge Religion. This one has the drawback that it's not clear how to get listed or how to move up. They have an official policy that they won't tell you precisely how their algorithm works (if they have one), and I'll admit I've spent some time contemplating this mystery. Nonetheless, by checking out their top posts, I've found some interesting articles outside my regular reading list. And if you'd like to play the "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" game here, you may notice that the Nonbelieving Literati blogs make a decent showing on their list...

Which brings me to that literate atheist playgroup, the Nonbelieving Literati. If blogging is one of your hobbies, then I'd be willing to wager that you like reading, you like your reading choices to challenge (as well as entertain) you, and most of all, you like to add your own thoughts and ideas to the discussion. So why not take it up to the next level? Join us in the world of stories bound up and printed on good old-fashioned paper! Anyone can join, all you have to do is get a copy of the book we're reading (in this case The Flight of Peter Fromm by Martin Gardner), and post about it on your blog on or soon after the due date: September 15. I've already read this one, and I can tell you that it's a fascinating portrait of struggling in the mire of Christian theology and of how the religion of your childhood affects your outlook for your entire life. (To get an idea of how this book club goes, read the last batch of entries where we read Cosmicomics: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.)

And in other atheist lit news (what else? ;^) ), remember that the serial novella Temple Wedding begins September 9. This segment is the one about the adventures of young adult non-believers coming back home for a big religious wedding. If you've lived this sort of thing (or expect you will), why not see how your experiences compare to those of our cast of exmormons? ;^) As always, you can read this segment as a stand-alone story (without going back and reading the earlier segments Young Women's, Youth Conference, Saturday's Warrior, BYU, Gratuitious Love Scene, and Polygamist), but you might want to catch up on the old ones since this is the story that brings all the characters together for a great big family gathering!

Well, that's it for this fortnight!! Tune in at Oz Atheist's Weblog in two weeks for the 99th thrilling episode of the Carnival of the Godless!!!

(If you'd like to submit an article, do it here. Also, you can submit a post here for the Humanist Symposium which will appear next week at The Uncredible Hallq.)

Great moments in visiting the parents, episode II: "Atheism/Astrology"

This is more a continuation of my incongruous book arrangements post than of episode I since this story takes place on a sub-voyage: a road trip to Madison, WI, to visit friends.

I've gotten into this crazy habit (probably inspired by Hemant's blog) of looking for the atheist books every time I go to a bookstore to see how they're displayed. This is the funniest one I've seen so far:



I know the tag is illegible in this photo, but this shelf's category is "Atheism / Astrology." I should probably make a joke about the word "atheism" being miraculously obscured from suffering this indignity, but my crappy photography skills require no supernatural explanation. (It's digital! Take two every time! says hubby.)

I hope this is somehow just alphabetical, but then it's not clear why "Wicca" is the next shelf down. Is it just me, or is this actually worse than getting confused with devil worshippers?

I found this in a feminist bookstore. To my fellow lady atheists: it looks like we have our work cut out for us, as usual. But I love a good challenge! :D

Anyway, I don't want to be too hard on A Room of One's Own Feminist Bookstore. They have a very cool shop with a large selection, and of course I was pretty psyched to find a women's bookstore at all. I haven't seen one since my pilgrimage to San Francisco a few million years ago.

And continuing my orgy of books, I picked up a few titles I'd been meaning to purchase: Parenting Beyond Belief, Dan Savage's The Commitment, and The Best of Best American Erotica 2008.

That last one wasn't actually on my book list -- it was a substitute. I was hoping to find Greta Christina's Best Erotic Comics 2008, and this was the closest thing. I'd just have ordered it through Amazon (as I did for a big chunk of my mountain of books I'll be schlepping back to Switzerland), but the thing is that for convenience I've been doing my Amazon orders through my Dad's account. I've ordered several books he probably wouldn't buy, but somehow I felt like buying a book of erotic comics was going a little too far... Maybe next year! :D

Me & P.Z!!!

I met P. Z. Myers this morning when he and I were both guests on Atheists Talk!!! I had a total blast!!! I could write all about it here, but why not just listen for yourself? The podcast is (or will be) available here.



So if you were wondering what I sound like, here's your chance to find out! And as a bonus, you can find out what C. V. Rick sounds like (since he called in with a question), not to mention Tangled Up in Blue Guy (the host of the show) and Bjorn (who interviewed me). The other person in the above picture is Lynn Fellman, who interviewed P. Z.

Note to my LDS readers: my interview was pretty Mormon-friendly -- download it and see for yourself. My mom even said I did a good job!!!

(How'd my mom find out I was going to be on Atheists Talk Radio? Not sure, but it probably has something to do with the fact that I publicly announced it on my blog...)

Gratuitous Love Scene

(Please review the warning.)



"You won't need to contact me," I said.

"What if there's an emergency?" asked Janie.

"Like what?"

"What if your mom calls and needs to get a hold of you?"

With my back to her I rolled my eyes. "Look, I don't have the number off the top of my head. Cindy is right down the hall. If there's an emergency, she can give you her aunt's phone number."

I grabbed my backpack and stepped out. I was hardly dressed for my little outing, but I couldn't get all dolled-up as if for a date and risk Janie getting suspicious and turning me in to Standards again. I had no intention of coming back to BYU after this year, but it would be inconvenient to get expelled and wind up not being able to transfer my credits.

Cindy and Amy's door was open, so I stepped in. "Are you ready to go?" I asked.

"Yeah," said Amy, "but you're not. Look at this hair!"

The short part had grown out sufficiently that I was able to cut it all to match, but I didn't really know what to do with it. Quick as a flash Amy worked in some gel, and with a few strokes of her magic hairbrush she had me looking as if I'd cut my hair that way on purpose and not just on a lark. Then she looked me over and added a few dabs of make-up. Read the rest of the story ->

Who is the sexiest atheist blogger?

Look, I've just figured out how to add a poll to a blog entry!!! In honor of this amazing new discovery, I've decided to ask the most pressing question in the atheosphere today:



F.A.Q. of this poll: (Cause I know you have questions!!!)

Q: Hey! Why aren't I on this list?
A: To answer this, ask yourself the following questions: Am I an atheist? Am I a blogger? Have I posted a picture of myself on my blog? Pictures of other people don't count, no matter how sexy they may be! (Yes, I'm talking to you slut and lifeguard.)

Q: So who are these people then?
A: C. L. Hanson, Greta Christina, Hemant Mehta, Ebonmuse, P. Z. Myers, John Remy, John Hamer

Q: Chanson, isn't it a little egotistical of you not only to list yourself here, but to list yourself first?
A: I've said it before and I'll say it again: this is a blog. It's supposed to be ridiculously self-absorbed. It's one of the conditions in Blogger's terms of service.

Q: Okay, but why are there so many men and so few women? Is it just because there are more male atheists than female ones?
A: No, it's because -- as a straight woman -- I'm totally biased on this.

Q: Biased? But... Chanson, isn't one of the people on this list your own brother?
A: Yeah, but I only listed him because I know for a fact that some of my gay readers want to vote for him. ;^)

Q: It's Valentine's Day -- shouldn't you be posting something romantic about your own husband instead of posting questionable polls about the sexiness of other guys?
A: My husband doesn't like me to post personal stuff about our relationship. Besides, none of these guys are going to win -- it'll be Greta for sure!! ;^)

Q: Why'd you use the "world map" poll theme? Because of the worldwide significance of this question?
A: Nah, I just like it.

Q: How come you don't have the atheist bloggers up against Christian or Mormon bloggers? Can't stand the heat?
A: That'll be the next round if people like this poll. :D