Episode 09 - CB4SM - Helen H. Gardener - My Creed

This episode of Cold Beer for the Skeptic's Mind features Helen Hamilton Gardener, an American civil servant and suffragist in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The passage comes from her book titled, "Men, Women, and Gods," and is her answer to the question of what creed she would have to replace faith.

You can directly download the podcast here, or subscribe to Cold Beer for the Skeptic's Mind in iTunes.


I hope you enjoy it.

Episode 08 - CB4SM - Robert G. Ingersoll - Religion of Humanity

This episode of Cold Beer for the Skeptic's Mind features Robert G. Ingersoll. The passage comes from a series of remarks given by Robert Greeley, chair of the Robert G. Ingersoll Memorial Committee, at the opening of an Ingersoll Birthplace Museum. According to Greeley, Ingersoll was waiting for a train in Waco when a reporter asked him, “Colonel, the clergy say that you are nothing but a secularist, one who goes around promoting secularism. How do you answer that charge?” Ingersoll's extemporaneous reply is still relevant over a hundred years later.

You can subscribe directly in iTunes or download the podcast directly here.

I hope you enjoy it.

Dawkins on Hitchens: "My Hero of 2010"

Richard Dawkins takes time to praise Christopher Hitchens:

A lesser man would have seized the excuse of a mortal illness to duck responsibility and take it easy. Not this soldier. He will not go gentle into that good night; but instead of a futile raging against the dying of the light he rages, with redoubled energy (and concentrated power in his vibrant, Richard Burton tones) against the same obscurantist, vicious or just plain silly targets as have long engaged him. But he never rants. His is a controlled, disciplined rage, and don't get on the wrong side of it.

Debate: William Dembski vs. Christopher Hitchens - "Does a good God exist?"

Last week I attended a debate between William Dembski and Christopher Hitchens, hosted by the Biblical Worldview Institute, a conference held by Prestonwood Christian Academy in Plano, Texas. The subject of the debate was "Does a Good God exist?"


William Dembski is a Professor of Philosophy at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, and has authored several books on Intelligent Design.

Christopher Hitchens is an English-American author and journalist, a public intellectual who has written several books in politics and religious criticism.

The audience was primarily the middle-school and high-school members of the private Christian school, and by itself it is impressive that the administrators would invite a well-known atheist to speak to the students. They certainly wouldn't have allowed the same at the private school I attended as a teenager. The debate was also open to the public for those interested. The comment was made that given the younger audience, the debaters agreed to shorten their statements, although the entire debate was still nearly three hours long.

There are two aspects to the debate I'll address: content and delivery. Debates are unlike essays or speeches, in that they invoke a sense of theater. A debater can have a rock-solid message, but if his performance is lackluster the message falls flat. Conversely, a natural showman can whip a crowd into a frenzy with mere platitudes and buzzwords.

Hitchens had the opening statement, whose content did not address the topic, does a good god exist, but was instead more of a justification for disbelief. He correctly explained that an expanding universe is evidence that this universe was not created for humanity's benefit, and he recommended Francis Collins' book The Language of God as a Christian's embrace of the Theory of Evolution. Hitchens shared that he disbelieves in God because he's opposed to the notion a permanent authority, "a king who cannot be opposed, a judge who can not be appealed." He encouraged the students to shed the ideas that we are the purpose of the universe and that we should be in thrall to a dictator.

Dembski's opening statement was almost entirely an argument against evolution by natural selection. His remarks made it clear that evolution leads to atheism, so his method of proving that God exists is to discount evolution. Dembski mentioned several well-worn statements about Intelligent Design as an alternative to evolution, such as the complexity of the cell and the patterns in nature.

Hitchens' rebuttal noted that atheism is nearly as old as humanity and has thus long preceded evolution. Hitchens wondered out loud why religious organizations are so hostile to scientific discoveries, and he also reminded the audience that millions of Christians around the world accept evolution as God's method of creation.

For Dembski's rebuttal, he agreed that atheism may predate evolution, but it doesn't predate naturalism, which is the larger threat to religion. Finally, Dembski began addressing the topic, the existence of a good God. First he claimed there are two problems we humans confront: a Problem of Evil, in which evil exists in a world managed by a good God, and the Problem of Good, the notion that good exists at all. Dembski asserted that the Problem of Good outweighs the Problem of Evil, but didn't spend much time defining the Problem of Good or why it is a problem at all. He also employed the time-worn argument that for us to declare God evil must mean that God violated a standard, but since God *is* the standard, the charge is incoherent. He also cautioned that our desire for evil to be eradicated *now* doesn't apply to a timeless God. Too bad for us time-bound humans, I suppose.

The debate moved to the Q and A section, where audience members submitted questions for the two speakers. Curiously, the Q and A devolved into a back-and-forth such that only a couple of questions were asked, but the moderator said that several of the questions were addressed during their repartee. However, the questions that the moderator asked also weren't related to the debate, but were questions about evolution or the Big Bang.

All in all, I was a little disappointed in Hitchen's content, although he certainly addressed the debate topic far more than Dembski. While Hitchens may have shortened his statements, I'm not sure he simplified his content for the young teenagers in the room. I've read several of his books and articles and while I can't fault his intelligence and sparkling vocabulary, given his British accent and obscure subject matter, I'm afraid most of his message went right over the heads of the Twitter-texting crowd.

However, Hitchens' performance made up for the obscurity of his message. Looking at him, you couldn't tell he was suffering from Stage 4 esophogus cancer with the exception of his fashionably hairless skull. He seemed strong and alert, and I was glad to see him strong and vigorous. Initially his performance was reserved, but grew more comfortable as the debate wore on, and his closing arguments were worth the price of admission. Dembski made the mistake of extolling the virtues of Mother Teresa (of whom Hitchens has a low opinion of) and by claiming the Nazis were secularists. These seemed to draw the ire of Hitchens, understandably not as comfortable arguing the ins and outs of evolution. Instead, he closed by encouraging the young people in the room to think for themselves and that any offer from God that you can't reject is not an offer but a threat.

However, all of my criticisms of Hitchen's content and performance are swept away in the lackluster display put on by Dembski. For starters, Dembski's comments were read directly from notes, and were about as interesting as you would expect when someone reads a speech at you. Furthermore, the notes appear to have been written for another opponent, namely Richard Dawkins. When arguing against evolution, Dembski quoted Dawkins several times, and even referred to Christopher Hitchens as "Richard . . . Hitchens" more than once. Dembski complained that once he started working with Intelligent Design his career began to suffer because, "Ideology rules the debate." Actually, Dr. Dembski, the reason your scientific career has suffered since you hitched your wagon to ID is because ID is bad science, not because you are a Christian. There are few countries in the world where it is more acceptable to be a Christian, so your martyr's plea falls on deaf ears.

In short, while both debaters' performance could have been more tailor-made for the audience, Hitchens won this debate handily. Dembski's performance was dull, barely addressed the topic, and was riddled with fallacies.

"Where are the atheist billionaires?"

Billionaire businessman Warren Buffet just donated another $1.93 billion to five charitable foundations, another step in his 2006 commitment to donate 99 percent of his enormous wealth to charity.

The majority of the funds went to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, a secular charity working to alleviate education and health issues around the world.

Warren Buffett identifies himself as 'agnostic.'

"He did not subscribe to his family's religion. Even at a young age he was too mathematical, too logical, to make the leap of faith. He adopted his father's ethical underpinnings, but not his belief in an unseen divinity." --from Buffett: The Making of an American Capitalist, by Roger Lowenstein (Doubleday, 1995), page 13.

Do Atheists Care About Others?

Answers in Genesis, a young-earth creationist organization, has a disturbing campaign arguing that you matter to God. The campaign has a signature video depicting a boy walking up to the camera, looking the viewer in the eye, then pointing a gun at the camera and firing it. The caption reads, "If God doesn't matter to him, do you?" The implication is that if you don't believe in God, you have no reason not to walk up and shoot people in the face. After all, what do you care, right?

AIG has received much press for their campaign, many of it negative, something that I think they were hoping for. They have a page up explaining their rationale, and it only fuels the stereotypes and hateful thinking that the video expresses.

Every day we are inundated with evolution-based messages intended to remove the Creator from the fabric of our society, our lives, our thoughts. But if we evolved from lower life forms, then the Bible can’t be trusted and life’s supposed billion-year history is one of continual death and struggle.3 If the Bible isn’t true, then why should we be fair and kind and love our fellow human beings, as the Bible teaches?4 After all, evolution relies on survival of the fittest—no matter who gets in the way.

The theory of evolution was intended to explain the rich diversity of the biosphere on planet Earth. It was NOT intended to remove a belief for a specific creator-deity, no more than studying North Pole climate is intended to remove belief of Santa Claus from society. Granted, an acceptance of the theory of evolution does make it difficult to also accept a literal interpretation of Genesis which was written based on sixth-century B.C. scientific knowledge. In twenty-six hundred years since the era of ancient Babylonia, humans--Christian and non-Christian--have learned a few things about the world, such as its true shape, its position with regard to the sun, and the framework of the wide variety of life. What AIG can't seem to understand is that most Christians accept evolution just fine--they simply feel that it was God's primary tool for creating the life that Genesis said he did.

Those who feel that neither they nor their actions matter to God lose their motivation to care for the lives of others or for their own life.

This is at best an unproved assertion and at worst an outright lie. Atheists, agnostics, and non-believers around the world all care for their families, their friends, and their communities. If this were not the case, then the sociological results would be clearly obvious: atheists would not be married or have children; agnostics would crowd our prisons; non-believers would all be anarchists bent on destruction. The fact that these social behaviors are certainly not true demonstrates that AIG may claim that atheists don't care about others, but in reality, AIG doesn't care about the truth.

Celestial Being smiling down on humanity

Often in the news, people are proud to show off images of Jesus, Mary, and other religious figures magically appearing in mundane articles. These manifestations are always described as miracles and are accompanied by dire warnings against humanities' ills and sinful behaviors.

On the other hand, sometimes God appears to be smiling down on us, as demonstrated by Mike Salway, Australian amateur astronomer and photographer. Salway recently snapped a photo that at first glance appears to be two planets and the Earth's moon in a rare celestial alignment, but when viewed with the right perspective, shows a smiley face in the sky:



Salway said the pictures made him "very happy" although I believe his language isn't strong enough. A case could be made that this happy face in the sky is God's way of letting us know that he is pleased with humanity. As time goes by, we are slowly but steadily eliminating superstition and faith-based reasoning, instead choosing to live our lives based on reality. God wants us to continue our progress, using our God-given brains to cure the ills of our world.

Either that, or it's just another case of pareidolia.

Is Belief in God Essential for Moral Virtue?

Paul Kurtz, Editor-in-Chief of Free Inquiry Magazine and Chairman of the Center for Inquiry has been published in "On Faith" a special Web feature of the Washington Post. Kurt's piece is titled, "Is Belief in God Essential for Moral Virtue?" and is an affirmation of secular humanist ethics.

Today, a new imperative has emerged: an awareness that our ethical concerns should extend to all members of the global community. This points to a new planetary ethics transcending the ancient religious, ethnic, racial, and national enmities of the past. It is an ethic that recognizes our common interests and needs as part of an interdependent world.

Book Review - Godless, by Dan Barker

Dan Barker is a well-known figure in the freethinkers community and his new book Godless provides a broad, accessible overview of his struggle out of fundamentalist dogma and into rational freethought.

Beginning with a recounting of his early life as a Christian evangelist/music minister, Barker honestly details his initial doubts about the religion he preached, finally ending with an open declaration of atheism. Next he explores the major arguments for the existence of God and the logical problems with each of them. Barker keeps the argument accessible for the average reader; those wanting a deeper exploration of the philosophical arguments can find plenty elsewhere. Next, Barker highlights his achievements and adventures as your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist, taking his message of free thought and skepticism around the world. Finally, Barker gets very personal detailing the near-death of his wife and new-born baby, and how they were able to struggle through a terrifying time without relying on a deity.

Overall, this is a well-rounded survey of a life well lived. Congratulations, Dan Barker. 

Dance the World Over

I think this is a first for Astronomy Picture of the Day. Instead of jaw-droppingly beautiful images of night sky beauties or deep space wonders, today's entry is a roughly five minute video of, well, dancing.

Just dancing. People around the world, all races, all ages, all religions, all of them grinning and laughing and moving to the beat. Some are free-form, some are formal. Some are in costume, some in ordinary workaday clothes. Some in brilliant sunshine, some in enough pouring rain to make Noah nervous. What's more, all of them appear to be happy (except the stern-faced guard in demilitarized North Korea, but he's probably worried what his superior officer would think if he broke rank.) I don't know if the dancing made them happy or if their happiness made them dance, but it doesn't matter. The joy of movement and music and the spirit of "Hot Damn I'm ALIVE!" brings a smile to my face.

It's the most humanist thing I've seen in months.