And it’s a good one, too.

I was dismayed to read that MIT has decided, after a hundred years without, that it needs a chaplain.

MIT is about science and engineering and mathematics. There is no place for belief in those disciplines. Only doubt: we accept evidence but constantly test it.

Our students, especially the ones from America, have grown up in cultures saturated with religiosity. We should give them a little break from it while they’re here.

MIT needs religion like a bull needs mammaries.

Sincerely,

(Professor) Joe Haldeman

I have to take exception to that last line, though. I can think of many situations where male contributions to nursing would be useful. I don’t see that believing in baseless superstitions has any virtue at all in modern civilizations, so Haldeman is being too generous in his assessment.

Revere makes a bunch of good points in his Sunday Sermonette. One is the sheer insanity of current American politics:

Enlightenment thinking is taken for granted by modern Europeans, so it’s no surprise they are aghast when the leaders of a 21st century power think Divine Guidance is a good reason for exercising overwhelming power over its own and other peoples.

And another is the importance of secularism and reason in any Democratic nation.

Democracy without rationality — or in my terms, Enlightenment values — is a hollow promise, or worse, mob rule.

Religious values are intrinsically autocratic and irrational, relying on ignorance for their propagation, and are therefore anti-democratic.

It’s a little bit of an oversimplification of the history of atheism, but it’s funny anyway…and the diagram for religious history is also grossly simplified.

People have actually tried to argue to me that science is so complicated, but “god” is simpler and should be the preferred explanation…but isn’t “no god” even simpler than “god”?

Timothy Sandefur has an excellent quote from H.L. Mencken on how we ought to be responding to creationists.

This actual conflict is joined, and it is the height of absurdity for the…compromisers to seek to evade it with soft words. That conflict was not begun by science. It did not start with an invasion of the proper field of theological speculation by scientific raiders. It started with an invasion of the field of science by theological raiders. Now that it is on, it must be pressed vigorously from the scientific side, and without any flabby tenderness for theological susceptibilities. A defensive war is not enough; there must be a forthright onslaught upon the theological citadel, and every effort must be made to knock it down. For so long as it remains a stronghold, there will be no security for sound sense among us, and little for common decency. So long as it may be used as a recruiting-station and rallying-point for the rabble, science will have to submit to incessant forays, and the same forays will be directed against every sort of rational religion. The latter danger is not unobserved by the more enlightened theologians. They are well aware that, facing the Fundamentalists, they must either destroy or be destroyed. It is to be hoped that men of science will perceive the same plain fact, and so give over their vain effort to stay the enemy with weasel words.

Mencken sure was right — his prediction came true. It’s the 21st century. Let’s finally get around to demolishing the old superstitions.

Darn it, here’s the atheist problem: we’re not easily commercialized, with nothing for the corporate world to sink their hooks into. Someone has noticed.

Look for atheist perfume and you’ll be looking for eternity. You won’t find the works of Bertrand Russell packaged like the latest issue of Self or Cosmo, as the publishing company Thomas Nelson does with the Bible. (“Becoming is the complete New Testament in magazine format, but it wouldn’t be a culture ‘zine if it didn’t address men, beauty, fitness and food!”) Look for the atheist equivalent to Christian yo-yos and Christian neckties and you will come up as empty-handed as Mother Teresa passing the plate at Christopher Hitchens’ dinner table.

No doubt the thought of atheist lip balm and atheist jelly beans is hard to reconcile for many freethinkers–one of the virtues of atheism is that not every aspect of one’s life has to be yoked to some clingy deity who feels totally left out if you don’t include Him in everything you do. Plus, there’s simply the logical disconnect: What do jelly beans have to do with atheism? Why not stick with books, rational arguments, reason?

I guess we need a money angle to line up the capitalists to back us up. Hmmm. Can we market some plastic bubble packaging containing a vacuum as an action figure?

Albert Mohler never disappoints. If you want a peek at the smug, ignorant heart of modern American Christianity, the weekly columns of the president of the Souther Baptist Theological Seminary are good places to start. In his latest effort, he expresses surprise that atheists might enjoy the Christmas holidays. He’s positively baffled that Richard Dawkins admits sharing in the traditions of his culture.

The thought of Richard Dawkins singing any carols with explicit Christian content is difficult to hold — unless the Oxford professor intends to sing of a faith he does not profess.

[Read more…]

A number of readers were peeved at the Connecticut Valley Atheists’ choice of a holiday display — I was not, and I applauded their assertiveness. So what do you think of the Chester County Atheists’ display?

The group’s display, “The Tree of Knowledge,” will include a 15-foot evergreen with color copies of book covers as decorations. Some of the book covers will include the Holy Bible, the Quran, “Ethics Without God,” “Why I Am Not a Christian,” and “Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism.”

Better? Personally, I would have left off the first two listed since they’re actually more a source of ignorance than knowledge, but you can’t fault the group for trying to be inclusive and conciliatory. These are the “make nice” atheists who are the only ones some readers approve of…but look what it gets them.

Fox News had a program on the display, pitting Margaret Downey against some wanker, Father Jonathan Morris. They called it an “outrage”. Father Jonathan was practically gibbering into his tea at the thought that atheists would have the temerity to speak up, even in such a consciously inoffensive way.

Father Jonathan’s comments were frequently interrupted by Downey, but he appeared to be trying to make the point that he supports free speech but feels that Downey’s group should have had the delicacy to refrain from exercising it.

…

“So many people who I work with on a daily basis, who are really struggling with faith, look and say, ‘You know what? I’m embarrassed,'” said Morris. “Because you’re an atheist, you’re trying to say therefore we’re going to sabotage what is a holiday, a religious holiday.”

I’m afraid that when people whine at me that we need to be more sensitive to those pious beliefs, when I’m told that atheists must be more tasteful, unaggressive, and quiet, I know what an exercise in futility that is — our very existence is offensive to some, and just the fact that we’re living in freedom is an affront to the religious right. You can’t win by accepting their rules and surrendering, so you might as well raise a ruckus and offend, offend, offend. And do it proudly.

I like their “Tree of Knowledge” idea. But now, if I were to do something like that, I definitely wouldn’t include any of their “holy” books. Being positive is good, compromising on principle is not.

Who knew we were so wicked? Slimy Sal Cordova thinks that being
sodomized by horses is concomitant with “Darwinism”, and Joe Blundo claims The Golden Compass is superfluous as a recruiting tool for atheists because we have the video game Grand Theft Auto, some stupid sitcom called Two and a Half Men, slasher movies, Girls Gone Wild videos.
I had no idea these were the rites of my ideology.

I’ve never played Grand Theft Auto, I might have seen ten minutes of that sitcom once before turning it off, I dislike slasher movies, and not only haven’t I seen Girls Gone Wild, I think the whole concept is contemptible and exploitive. Oh, and I’ve never had sex with any animal unless they’re members of my species.

I guess I’m a very, very bad atheist.

The UMM Freethinkers are having a meeting tonight, at 7PM, in Imholte 101. Our very own Michael Lackey, professor of English and author of African American Atheists and Political Liberation: A Study of the Socio-Cultural Dynamics of Faith^{(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll)}, will be giving an informal talk on the varieties of atheism. Come on by and join in the discussion!

This is an amusing reversal. Connecticut Valley Atheists put up a Winter Solstice sign in the town square, in the same place that was reserved for Hanukkah displays and nativity scenes, and while some people think it’s just fine and fair, others are freaking out.

On Friday, a town crew erected a larger Christmas tree, 10 feet from the atheists’ three-sided display. Mayor Jason L. McCoy said that the intent was not to block the view of the atheists’ display, but to place a larger Christmas tree in a prominent position in the park. He said he directed town staff to purchase a larger Christmas tree and to “find a spot in the middle of the green. That’s just where it happened to be.”

Asked if placement of the tree was intended to obscure the atheists’ display, McCoy responded, “Of course not.” When told that it appeared to be blocking the display, McCoy said, “Oh, really; that’s unfortunate.”

The mayor says he’s reconsidering the city’s policy. Some of the religious leaders are saying it’s a good thing because it’s making people talk about their faith. The wacky ones are claiming they see a cross in the atheist’s sign.

It’s so darn easy to blow a narrow mind.

---

There are more photos of the sign at the Connecticut Valley Atheists site.