Ironic Hyperbole

A little bit of stretching
May not leave one’s readers kvetching,
But it really is a case of “less is more”
Don’t compare a man to Hitler
If his crimes are vastly littler
Just remember what comparisons are for
If your similes are ruthless
You’ll be widely known as truthless
And despite your every effort to resist
You’ll have earned a reputation
That you like exaggeration
And your arguments will largely be dismissed

Or as Ogden Nash might have said…

Avoid overusing hyperbole
Unless you can do it superbole

In an ironically smug and annoying article, “How atheists became the most colossally smug and annoying people on the planet” (which I had to read over three times because I really truly wanted it to be intentionally ironic–I would still love for that to be the case, but I do not think it is), Brendan O’Neill engages in a bit of hyperbole–and not just in the title.

These days, barely a week passes without the emergence of yet more evidence that atheists are the most irritating people on Earth. Last week we had the spectacle of Dawkins and his slavish Twitter followers (whose adherence to Dawkins’ diktats makes those Kool-Aid-drinking Jonestown folk seem level-headed in comparison) boring on about how stupid Muslims are. This week we’ve been treated to new scientific research claiming to show that atheists are cleverer than religious people. I say scientific. I say research. It is of course neither; it’s just a pre-existing belief dolled up in rags snatched from various reports and stories. Not unlike the Bible. But that hasn’t stopped the atheistic blogosphere and Twitterati from effectively saying, “See? Told you we were brainier than you Bible-reading numbskulls.”

Now, I don’t happen to follow Dawkins on twitter, so I can’t actually speak to that first bit. I suppose it is possible that 900+ people killing themselves is rational in comparison to defending an author. I don’t really know. But yeah, that bit about the atheist blogosphere getting all egotistical is dead on. Well, you know, except for the articles critically analyzing the report, including (but certainly not limited to) FtB’s contributions by PZ and by Stephanie. The newspapers, yes, have done a bang-up job oversimplifying the paper, but not so much the “teeth-gratingly annoying” atheists.

Anyway, the rest of the article is annoying, too, but probably not as irritating as mass suicide, let alone as irritating as Dawkins’s followers apparently are, but my question is this:

Have you seen worse use of hyperbole?

What We Have Here, Is A Failure Of Imagination

I pray that, if a soldier needs a chaplain
Cos his spirit needs some comfort and some peace
Cos his mortal soul is traumatized and troubled
And he’s looking for his suffering to cease

I pray that such a soldier finds that chaplain
Who will pray with him, exactly as he needs
Who will celebrate his miracles and triumphs
And give comfort when his mind or body bleeds

I pray that he should find a Christian chaplain
It’s important that he finds a kindred soul
Cos you need someone who really understands you
When you’re broken and you’re trying to get whole

I pray that God is working through our chaplains
And I know that He will listen to my prayer.
But supposing that this soldier is an atheist?
Well, then, fuck him, cos I frankly do not care.

Sorry to bang this drum yet one more time (and I do not promise that this will be the last), but the Christian Post has a dreadful opinion piece up, and I just couldn’t let it drop.

Counselor? Sure. Chaplain? No.

That has always been my thought about the debate around the appropriateness of atheist chaplains in the military.

Always, no matter what anyone says. Why?

Throughout the history of the nation, chaplains have played a vital role in our nation’s military. From the battlefront to the home front, chaplains have prayed with, worshiped with, counseled and consoled the men and women of our armed services. Their weapons are not guns but prayers and spiritual texts. During my 30 years as a chaplain, I relied on the “sword of the Spirit” – the Bible – to defeat the darkness of war. It was my passion for the Bible and its power in the hand of a trained military chaplain that led me to my current position with American Bible Society’s Armed Services Ministry.

Ah. That’s why. It’s a case of Christian privilege. 30 years of getting it your way can leave you hesitant to embrace change. 30 years of wearing Christian blinders can convince you that the narrow field you see is the whole picture.

The Bible has a myriad of stories and wise words to offer someone who is fighting for his or her country.

Let’s say I agree. I don’t, but let’s say I do. Does it follow that there is no other source of stories or wise words? We know that other chaplains carry the Qur’an–is that acceptable? Other chaplains carry other books. I, myself, have not found comfort in the bible for decades. Would you impose it on me?

Unless it has been experienced personally, it is difficult for anyone to imagine the countless emotions that envelop those heading into harm’s way. In these situations, above all others, service members discover the inadequacy of human wisdom and worldly aphorisms. I hold no disdain for those who have not found religious faith, but I pray there is never a time when a soldier, sailor, airman, marine or guardian asking for a word of spiritual comfort and peace is instead directed to chaplain who doesn’t believe in God.

(emphasis mine) This bit is, frankly, insulting. Just terrible. It is statistically highly unlikely that the author did not encounter any atheist soldiers in 30 years. With his attitude, I can see how he is able to (probably truthfully) make a global claim that “human wisdom and worldly aphorisms” are inadequate in his experience. (It will go nearly unremarked that the bible actually is human wisdom, despite its claims.) The bolded bit is particularly annoying. As some of you know, I lost my brother a couple of years ago. There was no shortage of Christian chaplains around… we kicked two of them out of the room, at different times. They were worthless–not only for the four of us who were atheists (me, my youngest brother, and the two daughters of my dying brother), but also for the three Christians there (my sister and parents), and for my sister-in-law (rarely-practicing Shinto).

Let us, very charitably, assume that the author has a point. That it is important for individuals to be comforted by people who understand them and share their values (see how I took his insulting screed and translated it to something positive?). The only question, then, is… are there atheists in the Armed Forces? Are they, as Christians apparently are, deserving of a sympathetic ear that shares their values?

Military chaplains are representatives of and for their faith community. They are also the government agent for the protection of the armed service members’ constitutional right to the free exercise of religion. Chaplains are the ones who make certain that each soldier has been given the opportunity, if so desired, to practice his or her faith while serving in the military. The existence of chaplains in no way negates the right of a service man or woman to choose not to practice or embrace faith. But the appointment of an atheist chaplain undermines the very nature of the chaplaincy itself.

According to the supreme court, “none of the above” is a faith community. Not a religion, but a relevant category. And the “very nature of the chaplaincy itself” is described very succinctly by the chaplain corps itself: to care for the living, comfort the wounded, and honor the dead. None of which is out of reach of atheists.

The Armed Forces Chaplains Board should clearly affirm that while there are many roles for atheists to play in the Armed Services, the role of chaplain isn’t one of them.

Fuck you.

.

.

.

.

(I should end there… but really… the supreme court has a test–the Lemon test–to see if something is constitutional. Do chaplains have a secular purpose? I believe they do–and since they do, atheists deserve the same benefits as any other citizens. It seems that some congressweasels, and perhaps some former chaplains, disagree, and think chaplains serve only a religious purpose. If that is the case, it’s time for the US government to get out of the chaplaincy business.

So that’s the question: is the religious nature of the chaplaincy important enough to divorce it from government oversight? Or is it a service our government supports to help all members of the armed forces, no matter what their faith community? And yes, for government purposes, “none of the above” is a community.

I know from experience that Christian chaplains are not worth a bucket of warm spit when it comes to comforting an atheist. We already know that Congress does not care about atheists. Now we know that at least one former Chaplain does not care about a significant percentage of his flock.)

If You Dig A Little Deeper…

It’s a horrid, hateful message—
Well, it is, upon its face—
If you dig a little deeper
That is clearly not the case.

We should not condemn the godless
Though, of course, we really could—
If you dig a little deeper
Many atheists are good

When I say that you are hopeless
That your life is pure despair
If you dig a little deeper
What I’m saying is, “I care”

When I say you have no values
That you’re selfish at the core
If you dig a little deeper
It’s not you that I deplore

With no ultimate morality
There’s no “good” for them to choose
When you dig a little deeper
These are atheism’s views

I’m not saying you’re inhuman
I’m just worried for your souls

If you dig a little deeper….
What’s the first rule about holes?

In my new favorite bad article misunderstanding atheism and atheists, a Jeff Jarrett defends the anti-atheist billboard near St. Joseph, MN. The billboard, which you may have read about, simply says “With atheism, there is no hope, only despair.” That’s it. In quotes, without attribution.

Given the billboard’s prior messages, one might assume the new message was intolerant of the atheist world view. If one digs a bit deeper, it’s clear this is not the case.

Of course not. Why, this is simply a distillation of what all atheists must believe.

The billboard synthesizes the philosophical conclusion that every person must face if atheism is true. This is not to say that all atheists “live” or should live in despair. Far from it!

Most atheists I know are quite good people. Some would say they are morally good people. The problem has come to be known as the “human predicament.” It isn’t the theologian who came to this conclusion, but the existentialist who, without God, could not find ultimate significance, value or purpose in life.

We’ve seen this claim before. Oh, and the author is responding to comments, doubling down on his emphasis of “ultimate” significance. Certainly, we can make our own significance, and we do so. But we cannot find “ultimate significance, value or purpose” without god. We’ve seen that, too–although we so often find that the truths relayed to us by omnipotent, omniscient deities disagree with truths relayed to others by the same or other omnipotent, omniscient deities. With thousands of religious sects to choose from, which set of absolute truths is absolutely true? Good thing we have a god to tell us how to think, cos otherwise, we’d have to work it out for ourselves.

(Parenthetically, I had a wonderful risotto last night–thanks for the cooking tips, Comradde Physioproffe–with sweet sausage from locally farmed pasture-raised pig. That pig, it must be noted, had an ultimate purpose, imposed on it from without. Having a purpose that you do not create for yourself is not necessarily a good thing. The author’s boast of an objective, god-imposed morality, even if true, are no cause to rejoice.)

Back to the editorial:

For in atheism, good and evil do not exist; only your tastes and mine. Modern man faces this today in believing that he is the arbiter of morality based on the changes in taste, preferences and morays of the group. As the father of an 8-month-old, I cannot fathom being consistent in a world view to teach him that anything is permitted.

Actually, this is only true if you see good and evil as inextricably linked to a god; you see, more properly, his first sentence should simply have said “a god or gods do not exist”. Good and evil (that is, things which a community can agree are good or are evil) do exist–that is, we know what one another mean by it. They are useful terms, to the extent that we agree on them. I don’t know of any atheists who would agree with the claim “anything is permitted”. We just don’t outsource the justification.

Is there an objective standard for morality, even for atheists? I believe so. And that objective standard is the real world. That which we call good and bad (and this certainly includes what religions call good and bad) is that which, in hindsight, has proven to be adaptive in the long run. Treating others kindly, far from being selected against by “nature red in tooth and claw”, is a long term survival strategy. Saving for a rainy day is good; treating others honestly is good; washing your hands is good… because these things help us, and keep our genes around.

But here’s the thing. The real world changes. The real world has different environments, with different characteristics. Predictably, different areas of the world end up with different “ultimate moralities”. Well, predictably, unless you base your prediction on one single omniscient, omnipotent deity with one set of moral standards for all of humanity. For me, I’d much rather have a morality that is responsive to the real world.

In a universe without God, the universe runs its course and ultimately will cease to exist. Your life and my life are no different than that of my dog, Cocoa. We were here, then we were not.

In atheism, one must create ultimate purpose. But if your idea of ultimate purpose is different than mine, who is right? It’s obvious that without God, the universe and our lives hold no purpose.

Yes, the universe will run its course and ultimately will cease to exist. This is the truth. Would you have us believe a lie? Mind you, we’ll all be long gone before the sun explodes, let alone the heat death of the universe, so the question has little real bearing on us. (Of course, in one view of objective morality, by the time this happens, those among us who did not believe in and swear allegiance to the right deity in the right manner will all be just beginning an eternity of burning in a lake of fire, so maybe non-existence isn’t so bleak. I don’t have any bad memories of before I was born, after all.)

The logical consequences of atheism elicit emotion because to live consistently as an atheist is untenable. Grasping these truths put me on the narrow path that is brightly lit, not by me, but by the sacrifice, love and grace of Jesus Christ.

Frankly, this is a lie. Whether deliberate or not, there is no logical pathway from “atheism’s consequences are scary” to “therefore, Jesus“. You need positive evidence–ok, no, you don’t need it, cos there’s no law that says you have to be logical, or even rational. The truth is, the author is part of a Christian community, and believes for the same reasons most people do–because that’s what those around him do. He has his community’s distorted view of the sterile life of the everyday atheist, and for some reason thinks he’s not insulting us by sharing it. That’s all it is, when you dig a little deeper.

He needs to remember the first rule of holes.

Very Much OK

…Oklahoma, that is.

No time for a big post, but I wanted to direct you to a very nice newspaper piece from the Oklahoma Gazette: Atheism increasingly finds a home in the Bible Belt.

Oklahoma is home to more than 6,500 churches. It’s also home to one of the largest atheist meet-up groups in the U.S.

That latter fact might seem incongruous in a state often characterized as the buckle of the Bible Belt. But some experts suggest the large numbers of self-described atheists aren’t so surprising.

“I am a native Oklahoman, and I have found that while Oklahoma is a conservative state with a strong religious presence, it is a state that has a very fierce independent spirit,” said Charles A. Kimball, director of Religious Studies at the University of Oklahoma. “There’s a lot of respect for diversity, and that includes religious diversity, in this state.”

What follows is a thorough and very positive report on the state of atheists in the state of Oklahoma (with a nod to the rest of the country as well). Worth a read.

Why Don’t You Just Believe?

No one can see Him
No one can hear Him
He’s beyond our mere, limited scope
He exists beyond matter
Beyond space, beyond time
Where mortal man never may grope
His Mind is omniscient;
His reach is so vast,
Our senses just cannot conceive
The least of His traits
Is beyond comprehension…
So why don’t you folks just believe?

Back on August 1st, PZ linked to my post on presuppositional arguments for god, and disagreed with it slightly. In that disagreement, I think he (again, slightly) misrepresented some of the believers’ claims. I commented there, “But if we presuppose that the apparent natural order of things is the result of a god who keeps things looking like there is no god, the inability to detect some supernatural glitch in natural order is absolutely consistent with the god you have presupposed.“, to which PZ commented:

If you postulate an invisible god whose machinations are completely undetectable and further, are completely indistinguishable from natural, unguided processes (angels are very careful and precise in their steering and acceleration of apples that are detached from tree branches) then sure, we can’t argue against such a god experimentally. But we can argue against such a god epistemologically. How does the person who claims such a god exists know it? What tests did that person carry out to obtain this knowledge of the perfectly invisible god?

While I agree with this, completely, it misstates the believers’ view once again. So Imma try one more time, and then point out that it really doesn’t matter.

First, the try. It is not that the angels are behind each instance of apple-falling, but rather that the whole reason gravity (and other observable physical laws) are seen to have order, is that God made it so. Without a God, the argument goes, we’d have utter chaos, and no physical laws at all for us to observe (meaning, of course, that we would also not be here to observe them). So it is not necessarily the case that God is constantly intervening (yes, there is no shortage of those who claim this–their claims are completely testable, and to the extent that they have been tested they have failed resoundingly), but rather that the ordered physical world we are able to observe is the result of God’s past actions (back before we were there to witness, of course). No current intervention is necessary. Such a god, of course, cannot be falsified, but also cannot be proved by observation or evidence. If one assumes this God, one cannot disprove him. If one assumes no God, one does not need him.

But of course, the bulk of PZ’s comment is what matters, and where he is dead right. “How does the person who claims such a god exists know it? What tests did that person carry out to obtain this knowledge of the perfectly invisible god?” There is no reason whatsoever that such a god should ever have been assumed–at least, no reasons that can be credited to that god. We can look to history and see the anthropology, sociology, and psychology of religion–as a form of government (that is, a means by which to control people), as a tribal identifier, as a costly signal, as any number of functional, worldly things. All the reasons for belief in god are in the real world. Which means, none of them have anything to do with this god, which must necessarily first be assumed to exist, to have any hope of logically existing.

But of course, billions do assume their god exists. And, overwhelmingly, they call him Him (thus the gendered language in my verse, against my wishes). Which allows us a bit of a test, since this puts us back in the realm of the empirical. And the test is simple: Do these believers agree? They are positing universal truths about an omnipresent being (well, at least some of them are); are they converging on a common answer?

Well, there, at least, should be an answer we can agree upon fairly easily.

The Best Argument For Atheist Chaplains Is… Christian Chaplains

From the US Army Chaplain Corps website:

Mission Statement:
The U.S. Army Chaplain Corps provides religious support to America’s Army while assisting commanders in ensuring the right of free exercise of religion for all Soldiers. In short, we nurture the living, care for the wounded, and honor the fallen.

Source.

We nurture the living
We care for the wounded
We honor the fallen. That’s all.
Our mission is not
To convert unbelievers,
Or promote Christianity’s call.
To those who will claim
That the godless are different
And somehow, we can’t get along…
It’s not that you’re spouting
A different opinion—
The God’s honest truth is, you’re wrong.

I have former students in the military. To the best of my knowledge, none of them are atheists. One calls me his “atheist friend”. (I hate phones. I loathe phones. I avoid phones. I have this man’s number on my phone, and keep in touch. He’s that important.) Some, I am well aware, have been under fire. None of my own students have been killed. Others at Cuttlefish U. have not been so fortunate.

Think of the people you know who are in the military. Whether you agree with their religious views or not, whether you agree with their mission or not, my goodness, you care about them. With that in mind… please watch this:

The caller, identified as a “former Navy Chaplain” (we have reason to suspect callers), is an utter ass. (update–apparently, he is identified by name, and is in fact who he says he is, and remains an utter ass.)

They don’t have spiritual needs the way that religious sailors do. I was a Navy Chaplain and chaplains, by definition, are people of faith. They cater to the spiritual needs, they cater to the beliefs, or the religious needs… if you don’t have a religion, then you don’t have religious needs, so you don’t need the services of a chaplain.
If you need counseling, you can go to a secular psychologist in the military — that’s free of charge and that’s confidential*, so what would the duties of an atheist chaplain be?

The chaplains themselves (quoted up at the top) say that they “nurture the living”. Atheists certainly might need that, now and again. Perhaps quite often, if they happen to be in a stressful situation, like… oh, I don’t know… combat. Chaplains “care for the wounded”. I suspect that wounded atheists need every bit as much care as any others. Different context, but Shakespeare would probably have asked “if you prick us, do we not bleed?” (oops–sorry, Jewish chaplains are allowed.) Chaplains “honor the fallen”. Anyone who thinks atheists do not honor and mourn is a sociopath.

The caller, apparently Navy Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt, is exhibit number one as to why Christian chaplains are inadequate. I have no doubt that there are other christian chaplains who are competent. Who can look beyond the “atheist” on the tag and see a human being who needs help. And be willing to help. But as long as there are Klingenschmitts in the Chaplains Corp, there is a serious need for atheist chaplains.

Oh, and as an aside (it doesn’t deserve more attention than an aside), Solomon’s quip about atheists encouraging suicide is one of the more offensive things I have seen this year (and as you know, I intentionally read comment threads on the internet). I could, of course, direct his attention to the good people at Rapture Ready (no, I will not link there–search at your own risk, or just think about what the title implies), and consider that I could make a claim (with considerably more backing than his) that it is evangelical christians who would advocate self-slaughter. But really, a truly good person would be above that. Guess I’m just all right.

*this Klingenschmitt bearing false witness. Visits to the psychologist are part of your permanent record.

The Christian Post Just Doesn’t Understand

I have to keep praying
Keep constantly praying
My soul is at stake if I pause
Each moment of silence
Or prayer I’m not saying
Is grist for the devil, because
Each time when we eat
And we don’t pray at dinner
Thank god, we’re about to be fed
It’s promoting the views
Of the wrong sort of sinner
An atheist message, instead!
Each moment god’s glory
Is not being touted
Is one where it’s being opposed!
So if prayer can’t be spoken
Or whispered, or shouted,
Then neither can silence! Case Closed!

In an editorial at the Christian Post, Wallace Henley illustrates the myopia of privilege.

The House of Representatives voted July 23 against proposals for atheist chaplains in the U.S. military. The vote was an overwhelming defeat for the idea. Only two Republicans and 171 Democrats voted for atheist chaplains.
Contrary to what you may be reading, Christians should be disappointed and atheists should be glad.
Why? Because allowing atheist chaplains recognizes atheism as a religion and would make atheists subject to the same legal restrictions they have gleefully placed on every other religion.

Which, of course, is already the case. As the ACLU and others make clear in every first amendment case they take on. Which Dave Silverman makes clear in every interview.

In the contemporary environment it is easier to speak against God than for God in the public square. An officially sanctioned military chaplaincy for atheists could actually weaken the atheists’ grip on public religious expression.

Feel free to insert your own video montage of lawmakers in DC and across the country concluding their speeches with “and may God bless the United States of America”, and of Congress on the capitol steps singing “God Bless America”, of the same lawmakers reciting the pledge of allegiance and practically shouting “under God!”. Compare the amount of religious broadcasting to the handful of local atheist radio shows. Henley is clearly delusional here.

Think about the inferences.

He means “implications”.

Now, every time a non-theist squeaks opposition to prayer at a school ballgame, or before a city council meeting, or most any other public event, powerful movements mobilize. The mere lifting of a potentially litigating eyebrow shuts down what many consider freedom of speech and expression.

Mind you, this is what happens now. See Cranston, or Jackson, or dozens of others. The reeling back of privileged position is not the same as an attack. Henley’s position is analogous to the commenter who spoke of “invisible statues of atheism“.

Atheism’s well-financed institutions often base their arguments on the allegation that taxpayer money is being used to advocate a particular religion. But if atheism is seen for what it is, a religion, then theists might be able to claim their tax money is now used to advocate the atheist position of no prayer.

Wait, can atheists claim a tax-exempt status under this view? Maybe I spoke too soon… And for the record, “no prayer” is not “the atheist position”–it has long been the case (it may still) that establishment clause cases are brought by religious believers (but not members of the majority), rather than by atheists. “No prayer” is a level playing field. If you want an atheist, anti-theist prayer, I would be happy to provide you with one.

So if atheism is recognized as a religion, might it be possible that theists could have new standing? They might even be able to argue that authorities are unconstitutionally favoring the religion of atheism by restricting prayer to a deity?
The Founders, we are reminded, opposed a state religion. But today secular humanism is most definitely the American state religion in the eyes of some courts. Atheists use their religion to regularly win orders for the removal of crosses and other religious symbols, the abolition of prayer in certain public institutions, and the prohibition of teaching that might imply advocacy of any religion in public schools except atheism.
This atheist chaplain thing could get messy for the atheists. If they are recognized as religionists they may be under the same Big Brother search lamp, legal threats and harassment theistic religions face every day throughout the nation.

Ok, fine. You want an anti-god invocation?

If you could please join me, before we eat…

God is fiction
God is fake
Thank the farmers for this steak (or cake, or shake… depending on the situation)
There is no heaven
There is no hell
It’s time to ring the dinner bell
Let’s Eat!

There–that’s an anti-god, pro-atheist invocation.

Do you see the difference between that and silence?

Presupposing Zeus

Is there really any reason
We should not believe in Zeus?
Or at least to say he possibly existed?
A professor of philosophy
Believes there’s no excuse,
Though his writing seems, to me, a bit ham-fisted.

If we presuppose existence
Of the Father of the Gods
Or of anything at all, for what it’s worth
Then we find we can’t disprove it,
Though it’s way against the odds,
You can’t kill it, once you presuppose its birth.

So an atheist’s denial,
The philosopher asserts,
Should be traded for a pure agnostic stance
But logic is supposed to help
In this case, logic hurts,
As we watch him make his suppositions dance

And it isn’t quite pragmatic
Just believing something true
Till it’s false beyond the shadow of a doubt
We have vast imaginations;
Our ideas will accrue
Since we never have the leave to weed them out.

A very strange thing, in the NYTimes Opinionator today–Gary Gutting, professor of philosophy at Notre Dame, writes “Did Zeus Exist?” He notes, first off, that the ancient Greeks certainly seemed to believe Zeus existed:

The standard line of thought seems to be that we have no evidence at all for his existence and so have every right to deny it. Perhaps there is no current evidence of his existence — certainly no reports of avenging thunderbolts or of attempted seductions, no sightings around Mount Olympus. But back in the day (say, 500-400 B.C.), there would seem to have been considerable evidence, enough in any case to make his reality unquestioned among most members of a rapidly advancing Greek civilization.

Further, as this civilization developed the critical tools of historiography and philosophy, Zeus’s reality remained widely unquestioned. Socrates and Plato criticized certain poetic treatments, which showed Zeus and the gods in an unworthy light. But they never questioned the very existence of the gods, and Socrates regularly followed the dictates of his daimon, a personal divine guide. There were many questions about the true nature of the divine, but few about its existence.

Rather than being skeptical about the existence of a supernatural being, Gutting seems to turn Descartes on his head, refusing to doubt anything that there is the slightest possibility of being true, or even having once been true.

Most of us do not find our world so filled with the divine, and we may be inclined to dismiss the Greeks’ “experiences” as over-interpretations. But how can we be so sure that the Greeks lived in the same sort of world as we do? What decisive reason do we have for thinking that for them divinity was not a widely and deeply experienced fact of life? If we cannot eliminate this as a real possibility, shouldn’t we hold a merely agnostic position on Zeus and the other Greek gods, taking seriously the possibility that they existed but holding that we have good reason neither to assert nor deny their existence?

If we can’t be 100% bulletproof, bet your children’s lives certain (and we can’t), we need to accept the possibility of, in this case, Zeus.

He then considers some objections, which you’ll have to see there. It’s a very brief piece, so I am perhaps expecting too much, but they really come down to “since we cannot unequivocally prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, beyond any possibility… then it just might be true”. Mind, he’s not claiming it is true, but rather that we should keep our minds open.

On reflection, then, I’m inclined to say that an atheistic denial of Zeus is ungrounded. There is no current evidence of his present existence, but to deny that he existed in his Grecian heyday we need to assume that there was no good evidence for his existence available to the ancient Greeks. We have no reason to make this assumption. Further, supposing that Zeus did exist in ancient times, do we really have evidence that he has ceased to exist? He may, for all we know, just be in hiding (as Heine’s delightful “Gods in Exile” suggests), now that other gods have won humankind’s allegiance. Or it may be that we have lost the ability to perceive the divine. In any case, to the question, “May we properly remain agnostic about whether Zeus ever existed?” the answer is “Yes, we may.”

Two things, then. One, I’m surprised that a philosophy prof is conflating ideas of belief with ideas of knowledge. Disbelief in Zeus is absolutely grounded. Without convincing evidence (this is where “knowledge” comes in, and where his objections actually matter), Zeus has not passed the threshold for my belief. I have no obligation to believe in something that has no positive evidence for it, just because there is no evidence against it.

Which leads to my second thing. Presuppositional arguments may be logically airtight, but this example shows why good logic can lead to bad conclusions. It is absolutely true that science has to presuppose that there are no supernatural entities intervening, in order to examine the natural world. And we, therefore, cannot conclude there is no supernatural, since that would simply be circular logic, assuming our conclusions. And since our conclusions about the supernatural depend on our assumptions, the logic is no help at all.

A pragmatist approach, though, does not ask what is true, but rather, what is useful. A theory that explains more phenomena, or explains with fewer assumptions, is not necessarily “true” in any ultimate sense, but it is more useful than the theory it replaces. And theories are replaced–upgraded, if you will–all the time. They don’t have to be absolutely true or false–really, that is not a concern. And pragmatically, whether you believe there is a god that keeps the universe behaving naturally, carefully making it look as if the naturalistic explanations work… or whether you believe the naturalistic explanations… actually work… it really doesn’t matter. We know that if you start out assuming there is a god, you’ll conclude you can’t deny it, and if you start out assuming there is no god, you’ll conclude there is no need for one. So it really just doesn’t matter.

But (back to point one) that is all about knowledge. Not about belief. So… why would one presuppose the existence of a god? That’s the question we should be asking. Sure, once you presuppose one, you can’t deny it, but the same is true for Zeus, for Russell’s Teapot, for Sagan’s Dragon, and for compassionate conservatives. There may be no reason not to believe, but there is no reason to believe. Atheism is perfectly justified, even for agnostics.

One last thing… the comments at the article are very strange–given that it is the New York Times, the commenters are not what you usually see at, say, FoxNews or CNN. But the article itself is so bizarre, commenters can’t quite tell if it is satire, apologetics, excellent, horrible, or what. Anyway, I understood it all perfectly. By which I mean, you cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that I did not.

On “No Atheists In Foxholes”

Why the hell would you get all offended?
Is this something you atheists do?
A colloquial phrase
Said for decades, not days,
And it isn’t directed at you

It just means that whenever there’s trouble
Human nature determines, you’ll pray
Thus a foxhole will be
Wholly atheist-free
And that’s all that we’re meaning to say

So it isn’t directed at atheists
But at regular people, like us
And since turning to God
When you’re scared isn’t odd
There’s no reason to make such a fuss

Since we all turn to God in a foxhole
It’s no insult—it’s just what we see
So it’s all for the good;
We’re just misunderstood…

Yeah, it all sounds like bullshit to me.

Via Hemant, a recent kerfuffle over the phrase “no atheists in foxholes”–the foxnews version of the story is, of course, predictable, as are most of the comments there.

The comments that I want to speak to today, in particular, are the ones that say “hey, it’s just an expression, it’s not an insult to atheists, it just points out that when the shit hits the fan, it’s just human nature to look to a deity for help”. Yeah, we kinda knew what it meant, and the problem comes from the fact that it is both insulting and wrong. Not from any misunderstanding.

It reminds me of another “just an expression”, one my bigoted grandfather used to say. Let me preface this by saying I do not intend to equate the two, just to show the similarity in argument. My grand-dad, intending to compliment someone on doing right by him, would say “that’s real white of you.” Which, of course, was not at all intended as an insult to non-whites. It just meant that the attributes naturally associated with whites were honesty, hard work, integrity, and basic goodness, whereas the associated negative attributes were more what we expect to see in non-whites. Just an observation, you see; just a colloquial expression. Nothing personal, and certainly nothing racist.

When you use a phrase that is built upon an insulting falsehood, it doesn’t get to be grandfathered in just because it’s been around a while. Grandfathers can be bigots, after all.

And for those who are so kindly explaining to atheists how our reactions to the false and insulting “no atheists in foxholes” just show how thin-skinned we are… thanks. Really, thanks. That’s real white of you.