Archive
Is Neil deGrasse Tyson an Atheist?
by Noah Lugeons
If you have even the most passing interest in astronomy or astrophysics, you’re likely familiar with the works of Neil deGrasse Tyson. The director of New York’s Hayden Planetarium,Tyson is part of the minority of scientists who can express his passion for science without boring the hell out of the general public. He hosts science programs on PBS, he appears frequently on programs like the Daily Show and the Colbert Report and he has a number of books that are comfortable reads for the uninitiated.
And he’s definitely not an atheist.
But he doesn’t believe in god.
Curious how that works? Well, if you go to Tyson’s Wikipedia page, you’ll see that Tyson describes himself as a “passionate agnostic”. In a recent interview with Christopher Thielen of the American Atheist Podcast, he explained that he’d repeatedly had to go back in and edit it when people wikied him to an atheist.
When pressed on this issue in the interview, Tyson provided a defense that was so intellectually clever that it almost makes sense. But it doesn’t.
Paraphrasing Tyson, he argued that dictionary definitions to not dictate the cultural meaning of words, but rather that the cultural meaning dictates the dictionary definition. He explains that as he looks around the country and sees people who call themselves “atheists”, he does not feel that they accurately reflect his views.
There is a pertinent back story here, of course. Like many scientists, Tyson has expressed strong concerns about creationism and intelligent design. Like many scientists, he’s publicly expressed the dangers of stopping an intellectual pursuit at “well I guess god did it”. If you take a few minutes searching the name on YouTube, you’ll quickly find a number of lectures where he speaks out against the encroachment of faith on science.
But of course, when he refers to “people who call themselves atheists”, he is referring to the four horsemen. He is talking about unapologetic bloggers like the intrepid PZ Myers. And even though he doesn’t know it, he’s also talking about me. He’s talking about the antagonistic way that the gnu atheists combat the dangers of faith.
To borrow a Thoreau analogy from the Tea-Partiers, Tyson hacks at the branches while Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Hitchins and Myers work on the roots.
But is it fair for Tyson to back away from the very term? Phil Plait, another noted “passionate agnostic” admits freely that there is no functional difference between his agnosticism and my atheism. He does not consider the possibility of god existing in his day-to-day life if at all. I’m sure the same is true of Tyson. When Tyson covets his neighbor’s ass, I’m sure that he doesn’t spend a moment wondering if god minds.
It is in Tyson’s professional and personal interest to distance himself from foul-mouthed and bitter atheists like myself, but should one do so by trying to redefine language? Why claim oneself an agnostic if you aren’t truly on the fence? Couldn’t we offer up a new term like “atheish” for folks like Tyson?
Atheists are in short supply in this country. For that reason we love to try to claim people whenever possible. Many an atheist will make the argument that Obama is part of our club simply because he’s intelligent, scientifically literate and doesn’t talk about Jesus with the incessant fervor that Bush did. It may be true that Obama is an atheist. Political reality would not allow him to admit as much, but there is also no direct evidence to suggest that he is. When we try to claim him we’re really not doing much better than the folks who try to claim him a Muslim.
But when actual, genuine, dictionary definition atheists are fleeing from the camp, I think that is a real cause for concern.
In my experience, it seems that two broad and imperfect categories can be described to illustrate the cause of this schism; “Atheist by way of science” and “Science by way of atheism”. I would count myself among the latter, as I’d rejected faith long before I developed any real understanding of the scientific explanations for those questions that religion purports to answer. Many others were only gradually led from faith as their knowledge of the universe grew and they came to understand that god was not necessary to make a universe or to make it work.
This difference largely defines which side of the schism one will fall into. While it is certainly true that not every gnu atheist got there without a gentle push from science, for people like Tyson and Plait, antagonizing religion is counterproductive. For people like me, it’s the whole point.
So fine, Neil deGrasse Tyson is not an atheist. I can’t exactly argue with someone about their own religious affiliation (or lack thereof). But if he gets to redefine words to distance himself from groups he doesn’t want to embrace, I’d like to claim the same privilege. Henceforth I am no longer white, as I’ve seen many people who call themselves “white” and I don’t agree with a lot of the shit they do. From now on, I will be ambiguous on my race and call myself an agnozoid. I would also like to disavow my species in general, as I’ve seen people who call themselves “human” and I don’t agree with them either. Thus I now choose to belong to my own new hominid species, homo incognitus.
Tyson, I love your work and I have your books sitting on my shelf. I understand why one would not want to choose sides in a dispute that is so often marked my hatred and vicious personal attacks. But not wanting to draw fire from religious nut-jobs is no excuse to go redefining words.
Atheist Converts to Christianity for $1 Million
by Noah Lugeons
In the past, I’ve often been asked what it would take to make me believe in god. Normally I simply answer “a shred of objective evidence would help”, but from now on I’m going to add to that “a million dollars of Jesus’ money”.
Atheist Sal Bentivegna claims that he offered a mock prayer to Jesus that his mother would win a million dollars in the lottery. According to a widely disseminated report, on the following day she did. This was all the proof Sal needed and now he’s a Christian. Or so we’re supposed to believe.
Now, I won’t trip into the “no true Scotsman” fallacy here. It’s entirely possible that this story went down just as it was reported and it’s entirely possibly that Sal was a genuine atheist. But clearly he was no skeptic. And if he was, he was a really crappy one.
Skeptics learn early on that anecdotes like this are a dime a dozen. They’re unprovable so they have to be taken entirely on faith (something we atheists tend to lack), they’re not repeatable and most importantly, there is no measurement of success. Let’s suppose that mom had won only $10,000 on her scratch off ticket. Would Sal remain unconvinced? What if she’d still won the million but it wasn’t for another 3 days. Would Sal remain loyal to the ranks of the non-believers?
Now don’t get me wrong. If the report is to be trusted, the odds of his mom getting $1 million the day after he mock-prayed for it are pretty damned remote. I don’t know exactly how remote it was, of course, since we have no idea how much money mom’s pissed into the New York lottery up to this point. The report says she’d purchased a “Lottery Tree”, not a ticket, so it’s not like Jesus was only getting one crack at this.
For those not familiar with the term, this is a lottery tree:
Not to be too speculative, but I’m guessing that a woman who was talking about the lottery with her son the night before (to the point that he was belittling her faith over it) and then purchased a testament to poor math skills like the one shown above probably plays more than her fair share of lottery. So what were the odds that she would have won a million dollars at some point? Remote to be sure, but she might have narrowed them down to 1 in 1200 if she flushed enough of her income away on the things over the years.
This is one of those stories Christians love to trot out. Man prays for million dollars, man gets million dollars, ergo, Jesus. It’s a win-win argument for them because for some reason the people who pray for a million dollars and don’t get it aren’t counted in the “god is bullshit” column of their ledger. Remember the hits, forget the misses and ignore the fact that while Jesus was busy acquiescing to the greedy prayer of an atheist he was also ignoring a devout mother who was begging for the health of her child.
It would be pretty easy to test the claim scientifically, of course. Sal could just pray that mom wins another million tomorrow. If she doesn’t, he knows the first million was a fluke and there is no god.
There is an alternative theory, though, and I don’t want to be too quick to dismiss old Sal. When mom wins a million bucks in her will-writing years, it might be best to believe whatever the hell she wants you to believe.
Sunday School
by Noah Lugeons
Starting a tradition today. I’ll do you the service of scouring YouTube each week and bring you the best that unapologetic atheism has to offer. This is a video that’s been around for quite some time but it still gives me a thrill. I was recently reminded of it and thought it would be a perfect first installment in our Sunday School video library.
Patron Saint of Genital Diseases Could be Yours!
by Noah Lugeons
Sometimes, I only wish I was kidding.
Next Sunday you will have the option of purchasing the decapitated head of Saint Vitalis of Assissi at auction. As if this wasn’t macabre enough, the head belongs to the patron saint of genital diseases.
Instead of focusing on what a post-mortem “fuck you” it is to be posthumously associated with genital warts, I’d rather take the angle that I don’t think the Catholic Church can really afford to be giving up that relic. Given the ever-expanding scope of the sexual abuse scandal, it’s only a matter of time before they really need this guy. Or, at the very least, their victims might.
Apparently St. Vitalis of Assisi was something of a player in his life (and with a name like “Vitalis”, how could he not be?). He spent the first half of his days fucking everything he could hold down and the last half atoning for those sins. No word on how many venereal diseases he managed to collect in his lifetime, but clearly it was enough that “genital disease” was the first thing that popped to mind when people thought about him after death.
But now, centuries later, his mortal remains have become something of a ghastly souvenir. The auction house expects his skull to sell for somewhere between $1200 and $1800 according to published reports. I can only imagine how bad your syphilis has to get before you’re willing to spend $1800 on a pagan relic to get rid of it, but that’s beside the point.
What is the point?
Well, that’s hard to answer and it’s even harder to answer without the use of a dick-joke, but I’ll try:
There is a worldwide institution with about 1.1 billion members that thinks that the skull of some Lothario has the magical powers to rid them of their pubic lice. Nevermind that the same institution is guilty of a worldwide child-rape cover-up and continues to depress the availability of condoms in AIDS ravaged Africa. Nevermind that they illegally influence the sovereignty of other nations. Nevermind the fact that they suppress the truth about their perverse and demonic history. The pertinent fact remains that these are people that think a 700 year old skull has super powers, and there are a billion of them.
Just keep this in mind next time someone accuses you of being “disrespectful” to their faith. Does a group that worships the remains of a 14th century philanderer really deserve anyone’s respect?
Even the Brainless are People in Alabama
by Noah Lugeons
According to the Alabama state senate, you don’t need a brain to be considered a person in their state. You don’t need a beating heart or a functional nervous system… hell, you don’t even need to be multicellular.
SB 301 passed the state senate by more than a 3-1 margin yesterday. The bill, which still has to pass in the House, would redefine the term “person” to include zygotes. In the bills own words, “The term ‘persons’ as used in the Code of Alabama 1975, shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization and implantation into the womb.”
This is actually a slight back pedal from the original wording, which would have defined personhood as beginning at fertilization with no requisite implantation. Luckily, they compromised to a position that is only 98.945% insane.
This is, of course, only one in a long list of anti-abortion measures that various red states seek to implement on this legislative calender. In a brazen attempt to fire up the base of their opposition, Republicans rode to majorities nationwide by promising fiscal responsibility and then used that victory to claim a mandate against women’s reproductive rights.
The fact that such a law is scientifically untenable and reduces a complex ethical dilemma into kindergarten logic left the senators unphased. In a 23-7 vote, they decided it was alright to classify abortion as murder. The bill makes no provisions for rape, incest or the safety of the mother.
It is also, of course, political masturbation. It likely won’t pass in the house and even if it did it would be quickly struck down even by today’s conservative leaning Supreme Court. It is a theatrical and inhumane way of courting religio-tards. It is a mere spectacle of Jesosity. And, of course, while the state senate pisses away resources debating the rights of the unicellular, the people’s work goes undone.
There is, of course, strong opposition to this bill from within the state. But the strongest opposition comes from the voices who say that the bill doesn’t go far enough. While there are certainly progressive voices within the state battling this draconian misogyny, they are being drowned out by those who say that life begins at fertilization, not implantation. They’ve gone so far as to cite extremely rare cases where women carry babies to term outside of the uterus.
But I say why stop there? Why should we wait for fertilization? I say that, in the words of history’s greatest comedy troupe, every sperm is sacred. I say that every thirteen year old boy with a bottle of hand lotion and an internet connection is a murderer. Hell, with the advent of cloning, every cell on the body has the potential to become a human being so shouldn’t scratching at a sunburn count as murder as well?
I think it’s safe to say that, as a general rule, if your position on an issue is so indefensible that it requires redefining what a human being is, you’re on the wrong side of the issue.
The ACLU: Banner Banners
by Noah Lugeons
Gotta love the ACLU.
The ACLU announced yesterday that they would be filing a lawsuit to force a Boston area school to remove an explicitly Christian banner from the school’s auditorium. Apparently just pointing out that the law expressly forbids it hanging there wasn’t enough to convince the school, who voted to keep the banner up when the same issue was brought before them last year.
The ability of Christians to play “repressed” never fails to amaze me. In a nation where virtually every position of power in the government is controlled by a Christian, every president through our nation’s history has been Christian (unless you believe Bradlee Dean) and Christianity enjoys a cornucopia of privileges not granted to other faiths, still the holier-than-me of the world will claim oppression whenever they are expected to play by the same rules as everyone else.
Keep in mind that when atheists put a harmless sign on a bus with the pussy-footing message of “There’s probably no God”, the Christians get apoplectic. They sue, they protest, they write angry letters to the editor and eventually vandalize the signs. This is their reaction to a message so watered down it’s drowning. This is their reaction when we simply say “by the way, we also exist”.
And yet, somehow in the miswired mind of the faithful, it’s perfectly okay to indoctrinate the children of atheists (not to mention Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and those of any other faith). So much so that it will require action by the courts just to get them to stop flaunting their majority in a way that is expressly forbidden in the Constitution.
I’m okay with Christians claiming oppression, but shouldn’t we at least get the joy of oppressing them first? If they were complaining because they were being fed to lions, I would completely understand that. I’d also be on You-Tube searching every derivative of the words “Christian”, “Lion” and “Disemboweled”.
I’ll never understand how the Christian brain manages to overcome the inherent paradox of saying that they are being treated unfairly because they are being treated the same way as everyone else.
By the way, I double checked… there are no You-Tube results for Christian, Lion, Disemboweled. All for the best… it might have been a video of CS Lewis’ Jesus allegory getting ripped open.
Man Arrested for Planning to Kill Abortion Provider
by Noah Lugeons
It’s happened again. Much to the surprise of the evangelical pseudo-radicals, their vicious and careless rhetoric about “killing babies” has spurred one of their half-baked followers to seek an “eye for an eye”.
63-year-old Ralph Lang was arrested in Madison, Wisconsin late Wednesday night when he accidentally fired off a round in his motel room. The motel was conveniently located near a planned parenthood center where Lang allegedly intended to take the Lord’s work into his own hands.
This was not the first time Lang ran afoul of the law with regards to his anti-abortion lunacy. He was arrested in 2007 outside another Madison Planned Parenthood facility, where he apparently told the police that everyone in the building should be executed. Because apparently when Jesus said “turn the other cheek” it was so that you wouldn’t get blinded by the muzzle flash.
This type of psychotic, self-righteous rampage is far too easy for the mentally unhinged to justify. When they hear the venomous rhetoric of “baby-killer” from the trusted lips of their clergy and the horrific growl of their favorite talk-radio host, one should not be surprised that they take it seriously. We are mere days from the second anniversary of the assassination of Dr. George Tiller and yet the violent tone of the religious right’s balderdash has, if anything, amplified.
There is no doubt that we will hear from the apologists in the coming days. They will implore us not to paint every Christian or anti-abortion advocate with the same broad brush. They will accuse people like me of anti-religious bigotry (guilty!) for pinning blame on the mouthpieces that direct lunatics like Ralph Lang. They will distance themselves from this self-styled Christian warrior and say that they can’t be blamed for the actions of every lone lunatic out there.
But their arguments seem rather disingenuous. A few states away in nearby South Dakota and Nebraska the state legislatures have proposed laws that would expand the definition of “justifiable homicide” to include the murder of abortion providers. Until I see the churches organizing rallies to fight these proposals and marching on the capitol buildings of both states, I will discard their objections. When you fill people’s heads with the notion that a medical procedure is tantamount to murder you deserve the blame when those people take you seriously.
Ralph Lang actually believes that abortion doctors are out there killing babies day in and day out. If I thought there was someone, or worse, an organized group of people murdering babies, I would take my gun in hand as well. I’d like to think that I’d have the sense not to accidentally discharge it in my motel room the night before, but that happens to every guy as they get older, I suppose. The problem is the rhetoric. The problem is the terminology. When you start by accusing your opponents of being heartless murderers it’s gonna be tough to slip into a level-headed negotiation later.
Fred Phelps to Protest Memorial Service in Joplin, MO
by Noah Lugeons
There is no level of vile, inhumane, despicable, heinous, venomous heartlessness that would be considered unreasonable for the Westboro Baptist Church. There is no limit to their thoughtless bigotry. There is no act so unconscionable that we would put it passed Fred Phelps and his loyal band of homophobes.
No sooner had the dust settled over the devastation in Joplin, Missouri than the WBC was loudly proclaiming it to be the latest act of their spiteful and small-minded deity. Their website proudly proclaims this vast smiting to be yet another example of their fag-hating-god and his insatiable blood lust.
Filled with phrases like “We pray for your destruction…”, “God will not acquit you evil beasts of MO (who have sex with animals among your filthy sins)…” and, perhaps most telling of the dark and tortured part of the psyche their religiosity comes from, “Too many dead bodies to bury! That’s God’s Glory!”, their letter of praise to their vicious and petty lord reads like a love letter to death.
And they make it clear that this occasion requires the use of their most familiar weapon; bigoted picket signs.
It amazes me that our nation’s admirable defense of open-mindedness is such a ready tool for the small-minded. Our principled refusal to shut these people up exonerates our nation from the charges that Phelps levels against it (though I’m not sure it exonerates Obama from the charge of being the Anti-Christ). We, as a nation, are considerate even of the inconsiderate.
That is admirable if problematic. Putting up with the ranting, inbred fucktardery of people like Fred Phelps is a small price to pay for free speech and open dialogue. I just hope that there are plenty of us who are willing to stoop to Phelps level when he dies.
I’ve heard a lot of talk about protesting at Phelps funeral… or at least using it as an excuse to have a party as close to his funeral as legally allowable. I might be in for that, but ultimately it would be pointless. He’ll be dead and decomposing and won’t have the remotest inkling that anything ever happened. If you really wanted to turn the tables on him, it would have to be the funeral of his wife or a beloved son. Only then could he glean the slightest understanding of the suffering he’s caused to so many grieving parents.
But even then, his moral absolutism would shield him. When people speak for god, they are invincible. All who speak of god are in some way responsible for the misanthropy of douche-nozzles like Phelps. By empowering an invisible, fictional character with absolute ethical authority you leave a void where any lunatic who chooses to can stand in and speak for him. After all, it’s not like god can speak for himself. Does it matter if two people who claim to speak for the same imaginary space-daddy say different things? How can one message be more valid than the other?
The Pretty Problem
by Noah Lugeons
The atheist blogosphere is abuzz this week, as it should be, over the charges of sexism within our movement. Greta Christina had a thorough and thoughtful piece on it. PZ Myers threw in as well. I’m not going to rehash the charges, the apologies, the accusations and the resolutions. Suffice to say that it all centers around comments made by a rather attractive atheist vlogger, ZOMGitsCriss who does some pretty good videos while simultaneously being hot.
There hasn’t been criticism against her, of course, but rather against a number of thoughtless comments about how important it is to have more sexy atheists so that people would look at us more. I’m decimating the details here but if you want the skinny, feel free to check the links above. For my purposes, the bare bones sketch I just gave is more than enough.
See, it turns out that the church is having the same problem. They’ve discovered that having sexy vicars can help fill the pews with the added benefits that the molested boys will complain far less often. They don’t see this as a problem, per se, but it has to feel threatening if you’re the Raisenette centurion that she’s opening for.
I dont’ want to talk out of school or anything, but it appears they even have the same problem in broadcast news.
So let me make my point as delicately as possible. Unlike the news media and the Vatican, I think that the atheist community is moving in the right direction on this issue. Sexism is not an atheist problem, it’s a cultural problem that touches everything we touch. It is present in advertising, education, academia, entertainment, employment, religion, government and, of course, atheism.
We should be talking about these issues and we are, but it’s not fair to characterize that as the “first step”. It’s more like a first rocking forward in anticipation of lifting the foot. Talking is not stepping.
And this is not a new issue either. A number of small things have touched off this debate in the past and PZ Myers has been sounding the general alarm on this issue for some time. He’s strongly urged the inclusion of more women and minorities at atheist conventions and panels. This would represent an actual step and there is some evidence that it’s happening.
But a real step is in finding the common ground between atheism and feminism. I think it’s clear to everyone that the biggest common field in the Venn diagram of social issues here is abortion. Abortion is a right that is under constant attack from religious fundamentalism and far too often the atheists stand back in order to avoid the label of being politically biased.
There are a few secular arguments against the right to have an abortion. I don’t find any of them remotely convincing, but it is fair to acknowledge that the “Pro-Life” movement is not comprised entirely of rabid, inbred young-earthers. There are deeper questions of social and ethical concerns surrounding abortion than “Jesus wouldn’t want it!”, but those arguments are not heard in the echo chamber of fundies. Regardless of where you stand on the issue, all reasonable people recognize that a delicate moral line has to be drawn around the issue. But it’s impossible to have a reasonable argument with an unreasonable opponent, and good luck finding a reasonable religious extremist.
I don’t need to tell the liberals or the feminists why they should rabidly oppose the detestable wave of anti-abortion legislative trickery that is sweeping through America and, as Rebecca Watson points out, nobody should have to tell the atheists either. Regardless of your feelings or relative passions regarding this issue, the fact remains that religious fundamentalists stand on the verge of overtaking a right consistently upheld by the Supreme Court just because their god says no.
This fight need not only be about the right of a woman to exercise dominion over her own body. It need not only be about reproductive rights and equal respect for both halves of humanity, though that should be plenty enough to get everyone fired up. It is also about the ability of the religious right to trample upon the full freedom of American citizens and that is something that should have every atheist getting out their torches and pitchforks*.
*actual torches and pitchforks not recommended.
We Need Towel Day Carols
by Noah Lugeons
Today we celebrate Towel Day, one of the greatest of secular holidays. This is a day we set aside to remember the works of the great Douglas Adams, author of the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy series and the less often cited but no less hilarious Dirk Gently series.
Adams was pivotal in my personal trip toward atheism. I had already lost by belief by the time my cousin gave me his tattered copy of the Hitchhiker’s Guide. I was about 12 at the time and it was the first time I’d seen religion unapologetically lampooned in a work of fiction. It was the first time I’d seen anyone treat religion the way that I always saw atheism treated. It was the first time in my short and limited experience that I felt like it was okay not to believe in god.
The atheist thread runs deep in all of Adam’s works and he was an outspoken atheist and skeptic throughout his public life. His works continue to inspire and amuse and while it is hard to call such a recent work timeless, it is harder to imagine a day when analogies like:
“The ships hung in the air much in the way that bricks don’t”
will cease to be funny.
In addition to inspiring me to embraced my disbelief, Douglas Adams is also the person that inspired me to write. He sparked a lifelong passion that has done more to define the person that I am than anything else.
I will carry my towel with pride today.
I’m too late this year, but I’d like to put out an open call from the wide expanse of the interwebs (or the laser-narrow portion that reads this blog) for plenty of Towel Day Carols for next year. I can’t imagine anything that would be a more appropriate tribute to the life and works of Douglas Adams than a bunch of sacrilegious, sarcastic songs about a bullshit holiday celebrating towels.
I’d like to close this brief tribute with one of the most atheist appropriate quotes that one could find in Adam’s writings:
“Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?”
The Scathing Atheist 