Brother Sam Singleton, the Atheist Evangelist, on “Patriarchs and Penises”

On 11 July in St Paul, the Irreverend Singleton will be presenting a two-act play titled “On Patriarchs and Penises”, which promises to be delightfully rude and will almost certainly give the accommodationists the vapors.

Park describes the scene: “The stage is black and bare except for a pulpit, a small altar bench, three rickety folding chairs, and a coat tree, all starkly white. Brother Sam, in his signature frock coat, blue vest and matching spectacles, conducts the crowd through a hilarious and hair-raising tour of his childhood among ‘the tongues-speaking, snake-handling, frothing-at-the-mouth holy rollers,’ and subsequent ‘reversion to the atheistic state into which we all are born,’ before ending Act I with a mercilessly satiric deconstruction of the role of God in American life.”

She notes that the second act has Brother Sam teaching a “biblically accurate but somewhat irreverent “Bible class” in which Brother Sam satirically details the symbolic use of penises throughout the Scriptures. “Nobody ever told me that what ties the whole book together, its narrative thread, is penises,’ he says.

I think I’m going to have to try and make it to this one.

(via The Sunny Skeptic)

One of us

Our respectability among juvenile fans of Harry Potter may have just gone up a notch: Daniel Radcliffe has cheerfully declared himself to be an atheist.

I’m an atheist, but I’m very relaxed about it. I don’t preach my atheism, but I have a huge amount of respect for people like Richard Dawkins who do. Anything he does on television, I will watch.

I understand that this same segment of society has also found a heightened interest in the works of playwrights like Peter Schaffer, so we know the Harry Potter effect can help. If only Radcliffe had an excuse to take his clothes off for atheism…

Of course there is also the complementary effect that the people who were convinced that both Harry Potter and atheism were the demon-spawned products of Hell have now had their suspicions confirmed.

Why would I go on a game show with a lose-lose premise?

What a crazy idea for a game show: a Turkish program is looking for 10 atheists to compete for the chance to be converted. What next, a show with healthy contestants competing for the chance to be infected with a disease, and the winner gets a long hospital stay?

The game show producers give their bias away when they announce “We don’t approve of anyone being an atheist”. They’re also planning to have a team of theologians to screen out religious people pretending to be godless so they can get a free trip to the holy site of their choice.

Well, I’m not a fake atheist, but I’m wondering what they’re offering to people like me. We go on the program, we get non-stop harangues from crazy imams, priests, rabbis, and monks, and if we don’t fall for their foolishness, we lose? I’d be tempted to just say “yes!” to the rabbi to really piss off the Muslim hosts, get a trip to Jerusalem, and then annoy the rabbi when I tell him I lied. Or would the theologians also have to confer to determine that your conversion was sincere?

What is it with atheists and GLBT folk?

There is a strange correlation: most of the atheists I know are straight, yet when I post a pointless poll like this one, I know with near certainty which way the godless hordes of Pharyngula will try to skew it.

Do you agree with President Obama’s decision to extend certain benefits to gay partners of federal employees?

51.38% Yes
48.62% No

It goes further, too. We atheists tend to strongly favor women’s rights and equality in the marketplace, yet only about half of us are female. I could bring up an article like this one, in which conservative democrats demand that abortion services not be provided under universal healthcare, and I know how most of the progressive godless readers here will respond: with anger. You won’t be voting for Reps. Dan Boren (D-OK); Bart Stupak (D-MI); Colin Peterson (D-MN); Tim Holden (D-PA); Travis Childers (D-MS); Lincoln Davis (D-TN); Heath Shuler (D-NC) Solomon Ortiz (D-TX); Mike McIntyre (D-NC); Jerry Costello (D-IL); Gene Taylor (D-MS); James Oberstar (D-MN); Bobby Bright (D-AL); Steve Driehaus (D-OH); Marcy Kaptur (D-OH); Charlie Melancon (D-LA); John Murtha (D-PA); Paul Kanjorski (D-PA); and Kathleen Dahlkemper (D-PA) in the next election. Hey, Colin Peterson is my state representative; I’ll be writing him a pissed-off letter when I get home, and he has lost my vote.

It’s not just a selective reading on my part. Other sources, like Lavender Magazine, have noticed that the atheists in their communities have a rather reliable political and social position. Here’s a review of Atheists Talk radio (which is no more, I’m sorry to say).

Many radio programs broadcast locally are queer-inclusive. But aside from KFAI’s Fresh Fruit, which is total queer content, no program is as fully queer-supportive as Atheists Talk. Large time chunks have been devoted to Wayne Besen, the Fagbug, and Project 515. Plus, an organic queer sensitivity weaves throughout other segments, because of the atheist and democratic value that separates religion and state.

Host Mike Haubrich thinks “religious institutions that suppress the rights of GLBT folks are using their beliefs as justification for an underlying homophobia. By using the Bible as an absolute moral guide in legislating issues related to marriage and other societal benefits that should be recognized as being granted by such a basic document as the Declaration of Independence, they are demonstrating precisely the effects of church-state entanglement that James Madison was warning against. The state should not be used as a sledgehammer to enforce a particular religious code, and an individual’s sexuality should not be subject to the whims of religious interpretation.”

Contributor August Berkshire observes, “Americans are proud of our ideals of liberty and equality. Why then are some people shocked when these ideals are applied to people of color, women, and sexual minorities? Are some citizens ‘more equal’ than others?”

People dependent on religion like to claim that atheism is just another religion, and they argue that we can’t know that we’d have a better society if we got rid of god (and usually go the other way and claim we’d be immoral without our imaginary cosmic policeman in the sky), but you know, I look around at all the atheist communities springing up around the country, and I see the people who are most committed to tolerance and equality joining them, and I am convinced. A godless America would be a better America, one more committed to the Enlightenment ideals that accompanied its founding, one that would actually have some ideals and principles that would make it a better place to live for everyone.

I may not be perfectly rational, but my magic invisible monkeys are!

John Wilkins has tried to make some arguments for accommodationism. I am unimpressed. He makes six points that I briefly summarize here, with my reply.

  1. It’s the job of the religious to reconcile their beliefs with science, and atheists don’t get to “insist that nobody else can make the claim that their religious belief is consistent with science.” The first part is obvious — we aren’t going to compromise science with superstition, nor are we going to make excuses for them. The second part makes no sense. Nobody has been making that demand…but we will point out how silly the excused people make are.

  2. The usual excuse that making nice with religion is strategic, coupled with the claim that religion is always going to be around. Other people can be strategic. Scientists just ought to be honest. As for the tired argument that religion will always be around — no. Some of us have shed the old myths. More will follow. I don’t have any problem seeing a coming future where religious belief is an irrelevant minority position. Of course, if you start out with a defeatist attitude, it becomes a bit more difficult.

  3. Some scientists are religious, and we don’t have the right to insist that they give it up. I have not heard a single atheist insist that anyone must give up their religion. I can imagine a majority voluntarily giving it up, but my imagination fails at the idea of going up to some believer and ordering them to stop believing. How do we do that? So, sorry, Wilkins — it’s another complaint about something no one is proposing.

  4. Scientific institutions shouldn’t be asserting that science is compatible with religion — let the religious do that themselves. That’s the very same thing the atheists have been saying all along.

  5. Religion has always been wrong about the natural world, but religion is seeking knowledge of something different. Again, first part fine, second part weird. What knowledge? Can you even call it “knowledge” if it’s nothing that anyone can know? Why should we accept any claims by religion?

  6. NOMA is wrong, and there is no war between religion and science. Wilkins continues his pattern of being half right. I agree that NOMA was a false attempt at reconciliation. I disagree that there is no conflict between religion and science. Religion is an archaic, failed mode of thinking that continues to demand greater respect than it deserves, and exploits tradition, fear, and emotion to maintain its undeserved position. Wilkins tries to compare it to two dancers jostling for space on a dance floor, I prefer to think of it as one dancer, humanity, afflicted with lice, religion, and twitching and squirming unpleasantly while struggling with a persistent parasite.

So, a resounding “eh”. However, then he tosses out this bizarre bit of philosophical insipidity that irritates, like an annoying bit of grit in my shoe. It’s one of those superficially reasonable comments that, with just a little thought, looks awfully stupid.

Only those who are completely without self-knowledge think they are entirely rational on every subject, and that this licenses attacking others for their perceived failings in that respect. I know I won’t change their mind either.

Grrr. Once again, we’ve got a caricature of the atheist position: who among us claims perfect self-knowledge and flawless rationality? We’re human beings, last I looked. However, to imply that we can therefore have no license to criticize irrationality is to claim that no one can say anything ever against foolishness. It’s an abdication of intellectual responsibility.

If I were to announce that I were absolutely rational and that I had perfect knowledge, I would expect to be rightfully attacked by people like John Wilkins for my obvious failing. Hey, he just did — even though I’ve never made such an assertion. But I think we’d both agree that such an extravagant claim would most definitely be an astonishing foolishness that ought to be smacked down. What a crazy idea!

John clearly thinks some philosophical claims are wrong. But the curious thing is that he thinks certain other claims are beyond our capacity to criticize.

If, for instance, someone believes that a god gave us magical absolution by turning into a man and dying temporarily, well, heck—that may not be an irrational, wacky idea at all. If this someone claims that they have a magical communication line to an omniscient superman who assures him that the 36-hour death absolution was really, really true, we should step back, take a charitably philosophical view of the idea, and abstain from calling him a very silly man.

There are limits to what we can attack as bad ideas.

But, apparently, there are no limits to the absurdities that the religious can advance.

It’s an asymmetrical situation that will be maintained as long as we have people insisting that we grant religious ideas a specially protected status. I reject that — I’m going to insist that it is fair game to attack the obvious failings of religion. And it’s not because I am unaware of the limitations of my knowledge, or because I believe I’m flawlessly rational.

It’s because the invisible monkeys in my pants dart out every once in a while to whisper the truth in my ear, in the ancient language of omniscient primates. And that is a source of knowledge nobody can attack me on, by Wilkins’ rules.

The last radio reminder

Sad (in some ways) to say, Atheists Talk radio will make its last broadcast Sunday at 9am Central time. They will continue, but they’ll be moving to a podcast format rather than continuing to be sandwiched in between woo-woo altie nonsense programs, which is a good thing.

The show tomorrow will feature Greg Laden discussing missionaries. He doesn’t like ’em. Neither do I. It should be a very good last hurrah.

Jodi and Jason

In case you missed the trail of links that magically appeared on several blogs this morning, here it is:

Almost Diamonds → Skepchick → Greg Laden’s Blog → Whitecoat Underground → Traumatized By Truth → My Fair Scientist → Neurotopia → A Blog Around the Clock → Pharyngula

What it all led up to was a marriage proposal from Jodi Haynes to Jason Thibeault, which would have been a bit of a bummer if he’d said “No”, but we’re all pleased to hear that he said “Yes!”

A few people seem to be baffled by the business of a pair of proud atheists going through this “marriage” stuff. Isn’t that a religious ritual?

No! It’s an example of human values and human commitment that has been coopted by religious institutions — just as they want you to think you can’t be born and you can’t die without an attending parasite from some superstitious dogma, they also want you to believe you can’t stand up and declare your love for another person without a holy gatekeeper. No gods intervene, no priests can sanctify, and no government can dictate when two people care enough about each other that they willingly and publicly declare that they have a lasting bond. Nothing else matters.

So good godless congratulations to Jodi and Jason, from one happily married pair of atheists to another.

Latest entries in the accommodationist fracas

I’ve been away all day, shuttling family about, so I’ve been trying to catch up the ongoing drama in the conflict between those simpering accommodationists and us mean new atheists. If you’ve got a little time — there is a bit of tl;dr about it all — read Sam Harris’s exchanges with Philip Ball. Sam Harris we all know; Ball is a very reputable science writer who is also very much one of those “I’m an atheist, but…” fellows. It’s an infuriating conversation because, as usual, rather than talking about what us “New Atheists” actually think, Harris has to constantly go back and address the blithe misconceptions of the accommodationist.

But Harris’s conclusion in particular is worth reading anyway.

I realize that my tone of chastisement has probably grown very tedious and could be mistaken for hostility. But I can’t help but feel that there is a great asymmetry between our points of view – both in how fully they have been thought out and in their degree of the moral seriousness. I see the perpetuation of ancient tribalism and ignorance (read “religion”) to be a grave problem, and the source of much unnecessary suffering in the world; you claim that the problem is either not very serious or that it is unavoidable–in either case there is not much to be done. You do not seem to see what an astonishing number of the world’s conflicts and missed opportunities arise from people’s false knowledge about God, and when specific instances are pointed out to you, you deem them to be inevitable (if it’s not religion it would be something else), or you defensively say, well of course I object to that instance of religious stupidity: parents shouldn’t withhold blood transfusions from their children!… But the truth is, a comprehensive response to the problem of religious ignorance is possible, and a piecemeal response is totally unprincipled and bound to seem so. Our world has be shattered, and is reliably shattered anew with each subsequent generation, by irreconcilable claims about God and his magic books. Until we stop enabling these competing delusions–by our silence and by our silly attempts to change the subject–we will have no one to blame but ourselves when medieval ideas come crashing into public life–as they do, and will, to our great detriment.

It’s a weird thing to argue with an atheist who claims religion is unavoidable (Oh? So what’s so special about you?) and isn’t that bad or is actually beneficial (So why aren’t you going to church for your health?), but they’re out there and they are irritatingly inconsistent.

Then there’s the mischaracterization of outspoken atheists and the apparent contempt for theistic scientists. Here’s another example of that attitude.

We should not overlook the New Atheists’ support for science, progressive views and legitimization of non-belief as a viable alternative. Unfortunately, their record is also marked by an intolerance of religious people and the alienation of potential progressive allies.

That always baffles me. So if I say that I’m proud to be an atheist, I think theism is a profound fallacy that is incompatible with scientific thinking, that’s intolerance and then these religious allies are going to get pissy and decide evolution isn’t worth defending anymore? That’s an awfully broad interpretation of intolerance, and an extraordinarily dismissive opinion of the theistic evolutionists. I guarantee you that no matter how rude a New Atheist might be to religion, Ken Miller will never give up on teaching evolution or trying to explain science to creationists. The accommodationists can stop trying to scare us into silence with these goofy, unrealistic threats.

Mano Singham makes a similar point.

The accommodationists argue that it is a mistake to insist that science is antithetical to religion because if science is determined to be an intrinsically atheistic enterprise, then even so-called moderate religionists will turn away from science and not support efforts to oppose the teaching of religious ideas such as intelligent design in science classes. This kind of mistaken solicitousness for the sensitivities of religious people, the fear that they will take their ball and go home if others are mean to them, is not new. During the run up to the Scopes Monkey trial in 1925, there were many accommodationists of that era who did not want Clarence Darrow to defend Scopes because they felt that his scorn for religious beliefs would alienate potential religious allies. We now view Darrow’s performance in that trial as one of the high points in opposing the imposition of religious indoctrination in public schools.

There is no downside to godless vigor. Nobody has come up with a reason yet why we should sit down and shut up.