For everyone who complained that I didn’t say anything nice about Arthur C. Clarke in yesterday’s very brief note (I can’t help it, I don’t believe in burying my opinions along with the corpse), here’s some information that made my opinion of Clarke shoot up a couple more notches:

The famed science fiction writer, who once denigrated religion as “a necessary evil in the childhood of our particular species,” left written instructions that his funeral be completely secular, according to his aides.

“Absolutely no religious rites of any kind, relating to any religious faith, should be associated with my funeral,” he wrote.

I’d say the same thing about my funeral, with the added stipulation that if anyone tries to preach, at word one I want my friends and family to rise up and carry the jerk bodily out the door, and throw him or her into the street.

The critics of atheism seem, without exception, to be lacking in imagination. Over and over again, what we hear from them is desperate attempts to pigeonhole atheism as just another religion; they squat uncomprehendingly in their hovels built of faith and peer quizzically at the godless, seeking correspondence with their familiar theological nonsense, and crow in triumph when they find something that they can sort of line up with their experiences. “They want more people to think rationally — why, that’s evangelism!” Never mind that you could, with the same legitimacy, argue that when one person mentions to another that it is raining, they are attempting to evangelize their precipitational worldview. “They are so damned sure that they are right — they’re fundamentalists!” Jebus, but I’m tired of that “fundamentalism” claim: it’s the surest sign that you’re dealing with a clueless, dissembling, frightened apologist for religion when they start flinging the “fundie” accusation at atheists. And yes, it is exactly like accusing the fellow who walks through the door in a wet raincoat, to the sound of raindrops pattering on the roof and the occasional distant boom of thunder, of being a fundamentalist rainist because he can show you the deluge.

The latest entry in the dead-eyed zombie moan category of the standard atheism-is-a-cult criticism is John Gray’s complaints about “the atheist delusion”. There is no thought, no creativity in it; it’s simply another tedious retread. By finding a few opportunities to stretch the meanings of words, he wedges atheism and religion into a forced propinquity; then he tells us how awful, wretched and wicked this amalgamated godless religion is; and then, of course, he complains that atheists dare to find religion unpleasant, never mind that his entire critique depends entirely on labeling atheism a religion. I swear, sometimes I think it’s the defenders of the faith who have the lowest opinion of religion, since they all seem to believe that all they need to do is tag anything with the label of “religion” or “belief” and presto, they’ve killed all of its credibility.

[Read more…]

Richard Dawkins’ tour of the US has begun — you can read an account of his talk in Arizona. Next stops are Berkeley and Stanford, then Madison (I think my boy Connlann is going to try to see that one), then Columbia and NYU, and UT Austin … then it’s up my way to Minneapolis for the American Atheists conference.

If you’re planning to go to one of his talks, though, don’t go just for Dawkins — I hope everyone turns to their neighbors and introduces themselves, and that everyone realizes that there are many of us here, and that we can build a community of reason that will last long after the lecture is over.

One of the reasons we atheists have to be loud and assertive is that we are floating alone in a vast sea of ignorance. Case in point: here is an artist who has obviously never met an atheist.

I am expressing my feeling towards the very Idea of Atheism. I almost pity those who have such beliefs. I’m not saying they are wrong or right. I’m just saying that what they believe in is more depressing than any other possibility.

So I made this simple picture to express my feelings for somebody who believes in nothing.

here we see a person sitting in a blank room without any doors or windows. What is most troubling is the fact that this person wants to be here, and is unwilling to move from his chair. Alone, neglected, and lost to the ravages of time. without anything to grab onto and hold as a symbol of his own identity. Those who seek nothing as a reward shall ultimately receive it.

I don’t think Atheists can even believe in love, which is the saddest part.

If this picture offends you, remember that it is not directed at you. Even if you are an atheist.

Atheists don’t believe in love? Where does this nonsense come from? This fellow is a fool who sits alone himself, imagining what atheists must think, and he conjures up this ridiculous picture based on the idea that atheists are lonely nihilists who believe in nothing. I know a lot of atheists, and no, his portrayal is not accurate.

I’m not offended by the picture — I’m just sickened by the smug ignorance of its creator. There are a lot of comments over there, too, all of which are getting hidden away by the host, which tells us who has got his eyes firmly closed in this debate. I think he needs to retitle his picture to “Self Portrait.”

This atheist simply believes in all that is (which is quite a lot), and doesn’t believe in that which isn’t (which denial, to some theists, seems to represent a complete denial of the universe…which tells us more about their deluded mindset than ours.) Since the artist doesn’t understand that we do believe in something (including love), here’s a short, simple creed for the godless.

An atheist’s creed

I believe in time,
matter, and energy,
which make up the whole of the world.

I believe in reason, evidence and the human mind,
the only tools we have;
they are the product of natural forces
in a majestic but impersonal universe,
grander and richer than we can imagine,
a source of endless opportunities for discovery.

I believe in the power of doubt;
I do not seek out reassurances,
but embrace the question,
and strive to challenge my own beliefs.

I accept human mortality.

We have but one life,
brief and full of struggle,
leavened with love and community,
learning and exploration,
beauty and the creation of
new life, new art, and new ideas.

I rejoice in this life that I have,
and in the grandeur of a world that preceded me,
and an earth that will abide without me.

You should read John Allen Paulos’s latest column on complexity — it’s a central concept in the various debates that go on around here, and no one on the other side evinces any sign of actually understanding the subject. It’s always “complexity implies design” this, and “complexity only arises by intent” that. I’ll also second his recommendation of Stuart Kauffman’s At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity^{(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll)} — it’s a very good book full of interesting ideas and empirical demonstrations of order arising out of randomness.

Another reason to read the column: the ABC news site gets a more diverse mix of commenters than we do here, and if you want to get a wider sample of the American mindset, they’re much more representative. And far more terrifying.