Overheard: Professor and Student Redux

Professor: ...so recent scientific and medical discoveries are pointing to the idea that your mind is actually just a combination of biological and sensory processes that are dependent on your brain to exist. In the future, the concept of mind-body dualism may just turn out to be an illusion related to how we consciously interact with our environment. That concludes the chapter on monism, dualism, and pluralism. Next week...

Student: Professor, are you an atheist?

Professor: ...your exam will cover... I'm sorry, John, what did you ask?

Student: Are you an atheist?

Professor: I'm... Why do you ask?

Student: You're teaching us that science has a problem with God!

Professor: Well, no, actually I was just pointing out the possibility of...

Student: I'm a Christian. I have a soul. When my brain dies, my soul will live on in heaven.

Professor: What do you think a soul is? (To the class) Ok class, exam on Monday, be prepared!

(The rest of the class files out into the hallway)

(Student is silent)

Professor: I would say that the concept of a human soul describes what makes you you, does that sound right to you?

Student: Yeah, I guess. My soul is, well, me... but more than that. It's beautiful and immortal.

Professor: Ok. Can you prove a soul exists? Do you have evidence for it?

Student: My soul is who I am. Without it, would I be me?

Professor: That's a good question. Scientists have yet to find evidence of a human soul, so people who think it exists believe it exists supernaturally. Do you take the existence of your soul on faith?

Student: Yes, I have faith in my soul, but you have faith too.

Professor: I might. I certainly don't see a...

Student: (Excited) Is there such a thing as heat?

Professor: What?

Student: Because cold is just the absence of heat, not it's opposite. Is there such a thing as darkness?

Professor: Stop for a second. I know what you're referring to. First, that's not a true...

Student: Because darkness is just the absence of light, I mean, you can't get darker than dark, can you?

(Professor is annoyed but silent, gathering his thoughts)

Student: So, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.

Professor: Ok, Einstein, what is a premise?

Student: You are working on the Premise of Duality. You argue that there is life and there is death. That there is...

Professor: Ok, please stop. I don't need you to run through the script as if it were the all-purpose method for upstaging the smug university atheist elite. First, the argument you're making is completely irrelevant to the conversation we're having. I'm trying to help you answer your questions, not propose a definite solution. Second, that story is just not true. Einstein never had that conversation. No philosophy professor I've ever met, atheist or otherwise, would ever berate a student like that and keep their job, and they'd know enough to actually teach the problem of evil instead of use it to boost their ego. Also, after just ending an entire section on dualism as well as a section on logical fallacy last month, it really bothers me that you clearly haven't been paying attention in my class enough to know what you mean by “premise of duality,” which is a phrase I've never actually heard before in 25 years of philosophical education. Furthermore, I'm not even an atheist, I'm Jewish. I understand faith, but you must understand that I'm here to teach you philosophy. It will include scientific as well as religious thought, but it's my job to remain objective and show you how people think about these subjects and what we can know about ourselves and our environment. 

(student remains silent)

Professor: John, I want you to do an extra-credit report for me. Don't worry, it's not long. Go home and print out a copy of that circulating “Atheist Professor” story and write a one page report on what existence is, and whether you think nonexistence is the absence of or the opposite of existence. If you want, I can give you a couple of great books on existentialism to read.

Student: Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?

Professor: I have papers to grade. Have that report on my desk on Monday before the exam. Goodnight, John.

That student's name doesn't matter, because THIS IS FICTIONAL.

Atheist Fundamentalism

I've been seeing the term “Atheist Fundamentalism” pop up now and again in discussion with others on the topic, and I'm a little bothered by it, so I did a little research.

The word 'Fundamentalism' refers to a name for a movement in the American Presbyterian church in the late 19^th century. It was a reaction to a liberal modernist theology which was explicitly skeptical toward many of the dogmatic principles surrounding the life and preachings of Jesus Christ, especially the ones involving scientific or historical inaccuracies. The movement resulted in the outlining of “five fundamentals” which define what they believed it meant to be a faithful, fundamentalist Christian.

The Five Fundamentals were (so far as I can tell, accounts vary) as follows:

The Bible is literally correct.

Jesus was born of a virgin.

The crucifixion and death of Jesus was “vicarious expiation” or atonement for all sin.

The body of Jesus Christ was and/or will be physically resurrected.

The miracles performed by Jesus are historical truth, Jesus was divine.

Throughout the 20^th century the movement spread to other protestant denominations, and still exists strongly in believers (especially Lutheran and Baptist) who want to believe that the bible is the literal, historical word of God and that it is the only way God communicates with the faithful. It's basically a modern affirmation of Luther's sola scriptura or “scripture alone” and sola fide or the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

The word now basically refers to any ideological system which requires an unwavering adherence to a core set of specific, dogmatic tenets.

Now, most of us who have read the Bible know it's a massive work of literal contradiction and historical inaccuracy, but the only real relevance that has to a Christian fundamentalist is that it requires an amazing capacity for doublethink to believe that the inerrant word of God is rendered so because us mere mortals must constantly account for and correct errors in the work and call it interpretation.

Why would God need an editor?

Atheism has only one uniformity common to all atheists. It's not a rule or commandment to be followed, it's merely what it means to be an atheist. An atheist does not believe in the empirical existence of one or more gods as they are defined in the major world religions. It's as simple as: if you believe, you're not atheist; if you don't, you are. There is no confirmation, there is no entrance exam, and there is no saying “yeah, but those atheists aren't really atheists.” There is a spectrum of weak to strong atheism, but the umbrella similarity is as stated. (logically, if you actively believe there are no gods, you must also disbelieve in the existence of god(s))

The only fundamental interpretation of atheism is the definition of the word “atheism.”

Atheists don't need a specific set of dogmatic rules simply because there are none. There is no ambiguous holy book within which one might equally draw heretical conclusions by contradicting the accepted, orthodox version. We aren't afraid of losing members of the atheist flock to a rival organization or a competing orthodoxy. There is no overarching atheist ideology even if there are similarities in how most of us think and what some of us believe aside from our conclusions on the subject of god(s). We do not state, anywhere, that anybody who is atheist must submit to any ideological standard and there is no common belief that anyone in violation of the definition of atheism is inherently immoral, evil, wicked, lower, unsaved, unintelligent, or in any way not involved in the human experience. Frankly, most of us don't care if you're atheist or not. We discuss it because we want to learn about what people believe while making sure they aren't misinterpreting what we believe. We also want to discover other atheists who might like to know there are people like them out there and possibly shed new intellectual light on other things we might have in common. We talk about it because that's what people do regarding subjects that interest them.

The reality is that atheist fundamentalism just refers to any atheist, and is misapplied to those of us who enjoy talking about theology and the consequences to an ideology if you remove "god(s) exist(s)" as a premise. If you call one of us an atheist fundamentalist, you're basically just spouting a meaningless tautology that in no way resembles fundamentalism when applied to any religious group. There are atheists who evangelize and those who hate evangelism. There are socialist atheists, communist atheists, capitalist atheists, libertarian atheists, liberal and conservative atheists, atheists who believe in supernatural dualism, atheists who believe in materialistic determinism, atheists who see ghosts, and atheists who celebrate Christmas. There are gnostic atheists, agnostic atheists, faithful and faithless atheists, skeptical atheists and atheists skeptical of atheism.

There might even be an atheist out there who really does believe that Jesus was magic, born of a virgin, and came back to life after his death, but just doesn't believe that God exists either as that man or otherwise... and that person would be an atheist fundamentalist too.

Merry Christmas!

It's December.

It's the month every year when we all find it in our hearts to kindly give to others in an unconditionally loving manner and limp off smiling into the sunset on our digital crutches, tweeting “God bless us, every one!¹” over our shoulders into the camera with the assurance that all of the problems in the world can be solved with one last-minute God-fearing humbugectomy.

It's the month in which we all step aside to make sure every literate child overdoses on the Adderall of faith in faith and the therapeutic wisdom that so long as they remain good little believers, the world will postpone tragedy to sate itself on gluten-free chocolate chip cookies and lactose-free milk. And then on one special long winter night, that magical red pot-bellied jolly Christmas god will fly around the world to teach them that judgment and faith beget charity, instead of the other way around.

It's the time of year when we all drop our petty biases for more refined perspectives on peace and love, and the differences between us are washed away in a divine light of Christmas Spirit™, allowing everyone to share in this wonderful holiday provided they celebrate the same Christmas everyone else does and implicitly propagandize a nearly 2000 year old book of explicit duplicity.

It's that special time of year when the sounds of sleigh bells and Christmas carols conjure the image of snow falling on a polemical battlefield where hyperbole is declared on disagreement and exclusion is the road to amity, replacing the other generic season-based images of a polemical battlefield where hyperbole is declared on disagreement and exclusion is the road to amity.

It's an annual celebration of love for family, which can be measured by the enjoyment on the faces of the children opening gifts we bought with pepper spray at 4:00am on Black Friday and the return value of the items we didn't know our loved ones well enough to know they wouldn't appreciate, because it's the thought that counts.

Lastly, as Christmas approaches, we can take comfort in the knowledge that as soon as it is over, we can overvalue the turning of the clock one more time by imbibing massive quantities of intoxicating carbonated candy and viewing thousands of people standing in the cold to witness a giant lighted globe descend over the frigid streets of New York, and anticipate the very same annual cycle transpiring once again.

This year, I'm celebrating a second Thanksgiving.

Merry Christmas!

1 In this context, “every one” refers only to God-fearing Christian Republicans, as they are the only people with the God-given right to exclusively celebrate a religious holiday their ancestors pieced together from the winter festivities of the cultures preceding theirs.

O Come all ye Faithful 2011

O come all ye faithful,

Joyfully supplicant,

O come ye, O come to preach death to them.

Come and behold them,

Heathens, nonbelievers;

O come, let us ignore them,

O come, let us deplore them,

O come, let us abhor them,

Christ is the Lord.

O sing, choirs of schoolboys,

Forget the molestation,

Sing all that hear 'cept pagans God's holy word,

Give to our torture story the Atheists;

O come, let us ignore them,

O come, let us deplore them,

O come, let us abhor them,

Christ is the Lord.

All Hail! Lord we treat Thee,

Burn in hell the warring

On Christmas! For evermore Thy name create discord

Word against our Father, sinning and not fearing;

O come, let us ignore them,

O come, let us deplore them,

O come, let us abhor them,

Christ is the Lord.

Identity and Atheism

I've been considering a way to approach the possibility of a blog for a few weeks now. Should it be personal? Limited to a topic? Funny? Serious? Introspective? Analytical? I still don't know exactly, but I have a few ideas.

For the subject of this, my first post, I'll write about something that's been on my mind a lot lately:

Identity and Atheism.

Unfortunately, this is a subject of contention, mostly between atheists and theists, but also a semantic dispute even amongst those who share nearly my exact beliefs on the subject.

I am an atheist.

The following link should provide anyone wondering with access to the line of contention involving the definition of atheism.

http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/definition.htm

It seems to me that the split is over an inconsistency which is both trivial and unnecessary. In particular, there are people who want to believe that identifying with atheism indicates exclusively an active disbelief in the existence of god(s), or strong atheism: people who believe god(s) do not or cannot exist. These people want to distance themselves from those atheists they feel are making the same mistake as the theists they already don't identify with: Having faith in an unproven and possibly inexplicable premise.

On the other side of this are atheists who define it as passive disbelief in the existence of a god(s), or weak atheism. They believe that atheism includes anyone who doesn't believe because of apathy, ignorance, agnosticism, or skepticism.

By these definitions, whether you're strong or weak atheist regarding any definition of god, you're still an atheist. There's no reason to muddle it with esoteric distinctions which only serve to alienate the less educated (myself included) in the atheist community.

In previous explanations of my beliefs online, I have indicated that I can be either strong or weak atheist, depending on the proposed definition of 'god.' Regarding the character God as displayed in all three major monotheistic religions and in the works of many philosophers and theologians throughout history, I am a strong atheist. I am a naturalist and a skeptic, and the very definition of that being (super/contranatural, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, personal, existing outside of space and time, and containing infinitely insurmountable superiority in all qualities simultaneously) is both logically inconsistent and contrary to all of empirical human experience with the natural world.

My conclusion that this god cannot exist is resultant from a process of thought I will no doubt completely miscommunicate here, but here is my attempt anyway:

Strong Atheism is a refutation of a positive existence claim of god(s), using any definition, by theists. It is NOT a positive claim in itself, and asserting otherwise is either philosophically disingenuous or actively ignorant. In order to empirically evidence the existence of god(s), one of two criteria must be met: Either they have to show direct empirical evidence of the existence of said god(s) (and also evidence that what they're showing signifies the god they believe in, as opposed to any of the thousands of other concepts), or they have to show why it's necessary for such a being to exist using a working natural model, which is downright absurd, considering that any proposed model could be determined to work once you accept the addition of an agent capable of forcing it to.

Nearly all of the philosophical effort in apologetics concentrates on the latter, because tucked away in the definition of the god they are trying to evidence is a nasty little bit of inexplicability in the will of this being which prevents anyone except Him from showing he exists. How convenient. So we see an influx of theists finding any scientific model they can and either dismissing it outright (evolution by natural selection, big bang) or mutilating it in the attempt to support their predetermined conclusions (quantum mechanics, thermodynamics). Note: If you truly believe reality exists as a dualistic natural/supernatural model, all of your attempts to use the scientific method or evidence gathered by others using it to validate this are ultimately fruitless anyway.

Taking into consideration their definition of god, and the fact that working models exist which do not necessitate said god, I conclude that that god does not exist. The process goes like this:

The definition of that god is infinitely inexplicable.

Any working scientific model which includes that god is then also infinitely inexplicable.

We have working scientific models which don't include that god. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model

Those models are likely more empirically accurate simply because they don't require inexplicability. (Ockham's Razor)

Please note that this is not proof of the nonexistence of god, and any real evidence provided which conclusively shows the existence of god would completely derail it. I'm waiting.

Regarding any other definition of god(s), I am a weak atheist.

Now, there might be many people who completely agree with my conclusion and still decide to criticize identifying with atheism. Possibly they see overarching social qualities of outspoken atheists they do not agree with; maybe they simply do not want to be identified with atheism because of a strong current of mistrust and stereotype. No one has really been able to adequately explain to me how they can share basically the same conclusions I do and not be “atheist.”

Yes, there is a difference between 'atheist' and 'agnostic.' Yes, there is a difference between either of those and 'skeptical.' But for some reason there are prevalent misunderstandings of these as automatically exclusive (or inclusive) stances.

I am skeptical, I am agnostic, and I am atheist.

I can admit to agnosticism and still be an atheist.

I can remain skeptical of atheism and still be an atheist.

I can take a position with neither absolute knowledge nor faith.

And most importantly...

I can and will change my stance as new evidence comes in. Intellectual atheism is an admittedly tentative position, theism is not. That's the relevant difference. And calling yourself “agnostic not atheist” while sharing the same views as I doesn't mean you're somehow more prepared to deal with a change in what we know about our environment. It only means that when that change comes, you've manipulated yourself into a position so that you can be perceived as having been “not entirely wrong.” Saying "I don't know with certainty if the sun will rise tomorrow, so there's no point in betting it will" doesn't make you more aware, it means you are either unable or unwilling to accept that accounting for possible error in understanding doesn't require giving it the same credence as possible correct understanding.

I am using this as an introductory post because I see absolutely nothing wrong with identifying as an atheist. It's not a fantastically large part of who I am either practically or personally, but it is there. I'm not intentionally reminding people of my atheism to pat myself on the back, I'm not bragging about it, and I'm not out to convince nor do I think it makes me better than anyone. The only reason I write about it at all is so that, maybe, someone will read this and think "huh, maybe I should check that out for myself."

Yes, I'm aware that we don't know everything. That hardly means we don't know anything.