Gender Bias in the Sciences & Skepticism

Every year various groups try to have promotional events to get more women involved, and the sciences do this a good amount. There are groups even for women, or a particular day is set to inspire women to get involved. CERN has done this, and I did a little bit to promote it.

But it looks like it will take a lot more than that to fix the big problems seen in STEM today: women still make up a smaller fraction of scientists, engineers and mathematicians than their percentage of the population. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has a new paper out: "Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students." The double-blinded study sent out applications for positions at universities which had equal qualifications, but the only difference was the gender of the names (a similar study had been done with using traditional vs. African names in the US and how that affected call-backs for job interviews). And the study found a significant bias against women. Moreover, the study asked the reviewers of the applications to rank the persons whose applications they examined, and it was clearly in favor of men.

There are some things that make this even more stark to me. For one, this bias existed not only for males that reviewed the applications, but women too! So, it seems the title of this article is correct, that the bias is subtle, though the effect is not. Apparently there is some level of unconscious bias against women, perhaps due to stereotypes in the culture, and it will affect decisions no matter the gender of the person. This also means that a woman saying there is no gender bias cannot be given greater credibility than a man as she is just a likely to be "infected" as anyone else. 

On the blog for Scientific American, several other good points are made, including how none of the people that gave women a lower score used sexist language. The bias was couched in reasonable (perhaps rationalized?) terms. Perhaps this should be obvious; almost no one wants to be called racist or sexist, so those people will not use racist or sexist language. Nonetheless, the deeds speak for themselves. This will also means it will be very hard to fix the problem as most won't realize there is one.

This is something I have been seeing in other groups, and it has been blowing up in the atheist community recently. There have been abject denials of a sexist problem at atheist conventions and the like, and even some claiming the need to defend the rights of men (boy, those words of privilege ring hollow for me). All the worse that when there is sexual harassment, it is the victim that gets much or all the blame. Almost a year ago I wrote in support of Rebecca Watson and the abuse she had received for her rather mild statement about how it is not in good form to make a pass on someone in a confined space at 4 in the morning after being silently in the background much of the night. But perhaps worse has been the back-lash about the lack of a sexual harassment policy at The Amazing Meeting (TAM), and the denial that there ever was a case of such harassment (the story of how this came to be known is detailed here.) The denial also came from D.J. Grothe, a great figure in the skeptic and atheist movement (current president of the James Randi Educational Foundation) and a gay man. So much how women can have circumspect reasons for seeing women as less qualified, even progressive men like D.J. can be in denial of the problems in his own movement.

The response in general has also been disheartening. The comments on blogs have been vicious, emails even more-so, and it has burned out many a good blogger. Natalie Reed, who talked mostly on transgender issues, basically discontinued to get involved in atheist topics because of the response she had gotten. Jen McCreight, a biologist with a PhD in genomics, also has been burned out from the comments and emails over months. Greta Christina also had been trying to get over the negativity, and Rebecca Watson must have some amazing stamina to continue what she does.

This is a problem that isn't going to go away by ignoring it, and it may get worse before it gets better, though Greta has been rather optimistic about this conversation even with its horrendous tone. The reddit universe is also going to be a hotbed of misogyny as seen in this example. And while the Atheism+ movement wants to fix this, there has been a major push-back in calling what they do "divisive." Such talk has caused many to fight against being a part of Atheism+, including Ronald Lindsay and John Loftus. But if saying we have a problem with sexism in the movement, shouldn't part of the solution be to make those that cause the problem aware and have them feel shame for being irrationally sexist? Do we really want to have such people in the movement just because they agree with us on atheism but otherwise they are misogynistic pigs? (Richard Carrier has interesting points here about the use of insult, and here about being for or against Atheism+.)

The SSA group I am in will actually talk about women and secularism tomorrow at our meeting. We may not figure everything out, but hopefully we can at least gets the facts out there and discuss them the best we can. In the mean time, what are your thoughts?

Help Doctors Without Borders in a BlogTV Marathon

You want to help save the world, right? Well, perhaps you can't be Superman, but you can help with the many good charitable and recovery groups. And one of the great ones is Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), or Doctors Without Borders. It's a great emergency relief group that is efficient, goes where they are needed including the worst places in the world, and is completely secular. The people involved put their lives at risk to provide medical care to those that have had their lives turned upside down by natural disaster or ongoing civil war.

And you can help them raise money this weekend. For what I think is the third time in a row, many of the big names in YouTube and atheism/humanism will be running a BlogTV marathon for 24 hours trying to raise money for MSF. They have direct donations which is tallied up, and there is an e-Bay auction of various items, from books to signed photographs to a stay at a southwestern ranch. Here is one item up for auction:



The MSF charity marathon is being run, once again, by the excellent DPR Jones of Great Britain, who also tends to run the Magic Sandwich Show. Over the years, his work has earned over $100,000 for MSF, and he has gotten excellent guests, both big names on YouTube such as AronRa and Potholer54, but also Eugene Scott, Lawrence Krauss, A.C. Grayling, and Neil deGrasse Tyson.

The events begin on Saturday, Sept 8th at 4 PM Greenwich Mean Time (11 AM Eastern Standard). And it will all be here.


dprjones- Broadcast your self LIVE

So donate. Do it! You can do it here or here or here. And again, there is the auction with over 100 items up for bidding.



Donations will stop being taken through the marathon later on the 9th, but some of the auction items will go on longer. And you better bid on those things, because I have; try bidding and you force me to give more.

And while I mention giving for a good cause, also consider the Light the Night walks starting this September. This is another secular charity cause, trying to raise $1 million for research on cancer. If you hate cancer, and if you are secular (or not), get to know these walkers and help them or donate. Help work with another great organization, Foundation Beyond Belief. There is also a matching program; every dollar donated up to $500,000 will be matched; that means $500,000 donated will equal $1,000,000. And it fights cancer. You don't like cancer, do ya?

So much good to do. So little time. But if you have the money to spare, please help out these awesome organizations that really do git er done.

H.P. Lovecraft: Old-School New Atheist

Ah Lovecraft, master horror author and the ultimate source behind the belief in ancient aliens.

Via Unreasonable Faith:

James McGrath chews this over, and suggests that not all religion is like this (such as his own liberal views, or that of Deists), but it sure does seem to capture a lot of people. And it doesn't help if you add propaganda to the tool set to keep people in conformity.

Lovecraft went on in the letter this quote comes from to say this:

The fact that religionists do not follow this honourable course, but cheat at their game by invoking juvenile quasi-hypnosis, is enough to destroy their pretensions in my eyes even if their absurdity were not manifest in every other direction.

Doesn't sound that different than Richard Dawkins to me when talking about the indoctrination of children. New Atheism--not so new.

Thoughts?

Edward Falzon Talk Tonight

In about an hour I'm going to a talk by Edward Falzon (his website here). Currently he is on a book tour, and this is his only scheduled stop in Ohio.

Who is Edward? He is the author of the book Being Gay is Disgusting, which has a lot of fun paraphrasing the chapters of the Pentateuch.

And his talk tonight?

To officially launch this "Biblical Morality" book-series, Edward is embarking on a 59-city American tour from July 2012. On the tour, he will demonstrate that we're good people in spite of the Bible, not because of it, and that it's time to set this Iron-age nonsense aside, for good.

Should be a fun and (slightly?) irreverent listen.

Time to Converge

For dinner tonight, I'm going to a grill-out at a a group I am helping my Christian and atheist friends take wing. The idea was started before I came along, but it has a philosophy behind it that I can get behind, and you should too no matter your political or theological position.

The group that is meeting tonight is called Convergence, and it's trying to be interfaith without the barrier of having to have a faith (other terms I have heard used an inter-worldview and trans-faith). And basically, if you like intellectual discussion and trying to find common ground, this is great. If you prefer being divisive, then you will probably not feel comfortable.

Does this go against the ideas growing up in A+? I don't see a necessary contradiction because the folks I work with hold to much the same values as I do (as described by Richard Carrier for A+): rationality, compassion, and personal integrity. Sure I don't agree with the Christians about God and Jesus, but they don't evangelize through Bible-slapping, and on social issues we seem to feel similarly. One of the earlier discussions the group had was whether it is okay for us to live with luxury while so much of the rest of the world has decrepit living conditions (to put it nicely). These are conversations that can and do happen at atheists meetings as well, but to make the changes we want it is necessary to talk to the other 80+% of the country.

This won't reach out to all religious folks, especially those that love their Jesus but don't seem to think the "love my neighbor" stuff is all that literal. Again, the values described above seem to be a prerequisite for making such a group work, be productive, and create a community that unites rather than divides.

Currently the group exists only in Columbus, as far as I know, but we hope that it expands. If you are interested, let me know as we want to make organizations like this grow. It's great for atheists to work with the religious to show we don't all eat babies. It's great for the religious because it shows that the next generation is more tolerant, more reasonable, and more inviting than the previous generation. And I only want that to keep getting better.

But for now, got's to gets to the grillin'!

The Secular and Feminist Movement

There has been a crazy-level of rage in the Internet by those that think feminist issues should not be part of organized atheism or skepticism, and talking about it is divisive. And it has been grinding away at the best women in movement because of stupidity and/or bigotry. But if history has anything to say about it, the two movements are strongly intertwined.

Here is a great talk by Annie Laurie Gaylor about the history of women in the freethought movement for centuries.



It seems to be a fact that led many women to fight for their rights also lead them to rail against religion. And for many of the same reasons modern atheists attack theism. I think that is enough to show that the goals of feminism are entwined with that of skeptics and atheists. So we need to stop the bigotry.

Here is a talk that also shows some idea of what needs to be done by Pamela Gay (who is a believer but a great asset to the skeptical world).



Update: Pamela put up an annotated version of her talk.

Let's get things right!

The Sublunar Armstrong

Many have become familiar with the work of a religious scholar named Karen Armstrong, a former nun as well who studied at Oxford though not receiving a doctorate in her field of interest. She has written widely on the subject of the history of major religions, especially highlighting the spiritual aspects of the faiths. Most popular is probably her A History of God, but it is her most recent statements and her book, The Case of God, that sparks this post.

Armstrong has tried to save religion both from the conservatives of the faiths as well as the "New Atheists", which includes usually the figures of Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, along with Vic Stenger and PZ Myers. She must claim that religion is not what it is for the vast majority of people in the United States and much of the Islamic world, where sciences such as evolution are denied, where people are abused for not conforming to scriptures--the lessening of rights for homosexuals, including death as could happen in Uganda, or death for apostasy in some Islamic corners--but that religious faith is something beyond this world. Her theology is more sophisticated than that attacked by Dawkins and company.

What does she actually believe though? Well, this is the real problem because her beliefs are rather vacuous. The spiritual is quite subjective for her, such that the reality of God or gods is not a requirement for her faith. Now, that sounds like weirded-out atheism to me, when the existence of gods is not needed for belief in God. God is a symbol of things transcendent to us, and because it is beyond our understanding we cannot say anything about God.

Well, if nothing can be said of God, then what does it mean to believe in God? Saying anything about what God is or what he/she/it wants and what happens to us because of such beings would certainly undo this stance. In reality, the position Armstrong seems to take is an attempt to make sure her theology cannot be criticized--there is nothing to critique, as there is nothing at all!

Recently, a great critique by Troy Jollimore, an associate professor of philosophy at California State, Chico, has pretty much laid her work to waste. By wanting to take away all attributed to God, including existence, but still finding the subjective nature as valid as anything else, she undercuts herself. To me, it looks as if the whole effort is a defense mechanism, trying to protect that special feeling she gets when she thinks about God. Even a meaningless word or statement can be powerful to a person, and protecting the idea, the feeling, of God is her mission. It is not about the facts of nature or deep philosophy, but the will to believe. Armstrong only has rhetoric and feels powerful, as demonstrated by a reviewer from NPR, Susan Jane Gilman, but there is no real depth.

Even religious scholars seem to scoff at her insinuations, and not simply from the conservative wing. Robert M. Price, a former evangelical, now an atheist-Christian and biblical scholar, simply cannot stand her, as he has made clear to me; and R. Joseph Hoffman, another New Testament scholar, finds her arguments as little more than cliche. Armstrong, in trying to make religion something new, seems to have dropped everything that made it worth while, all for some new-agey product.

It seems Armstrong is the religious homeopath--the less things you believe in when it comes to religion, the stronger the faith. No matter what is coherent or intelligible, for God is beyond all such things. But with such soaring rhetoric, there is nothing to latch upon, no being that is there, no essence other than shear desire. Armstrong, by her want of transendence, has left the wonders of what can be, which should be upsetting to someone of a Buddhist stance. The self-indulgent narcissism is something that will leave you in Samsara; Nirvana cannot be a state of hoped-for desire, but to be beyond such desires. That must include the desires of transcendence which cannot be articulated. Otherwise, you are stuck with the illusion of reality, that which the Buddha warned against. Armstrong has attached herself to that which is not anything at all, and that is worse than at least those that believe in things that can be seen.

Let's compare this to another Armstrong or two. There is the biking-sensation, Lance Armstrong, overcoming both the competition and mortality to become something we admire. And how could we forget the Armstrong that was truly super-lunar? With our hopes and dreams of becoming more than just a species trapped on the surface of a spinning rock, we truly went beyond this world to touch another and understand our place in it. One day we will repeat this feat on the Moon again, and later to Mars and perhaps beyond. This is growth of the spirit, in the capacity of humankind that we can see. As the plaque on the lunar surface says: We came in peace for all mankind. Not bad, minus the sexist language.

Understanding who we are through the sciences has led humanity to an amazing position. We know that we have a history of 13.7 billion years from the fires of the Big Bang to the collection of dust and gas to form the Sun and the Earth. We have a four billion year history of life on this world, and each of us living today comes from an unbroken chain of the winners of nature, those that succeeded in making it to the next generation. We know that we are composed forged matter from stellar furnaces. We are children of the stars! This is all objectively known to be true, not simply a feeling or a desire.

We need no "deepity", to use the phrase from Dan Dennett. In fact, he has given a wonderful lecture of this subject recently:



Note: Dan is the Man!

Seeing is Believing

Often I hear someone mention a line from the letters of St. Paul, namely Romans 1:20

Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.

That is, the ways of God are manifest in all the things of nature. Open your eyes and you will see the ways of the Lord.

Yet, I think it is important to remember how open things are to interpretation. For example, if signs from God are visible in nature, what is the message from this?


Perhaps one will say that this is just a random formation of birds, not a deliberate insult to humans who have randomly take the middle finger to be an insult. If that is so, then doesn't that apply to all things? We see messages in the noise of existence and place purpose there--see the effects of pareidolia for example.

Perhaps instead it is better to make a purposeful noise in this universe rather than trying to find someone else's, especially if they are rude.

Recent Stellar Developments

It's been a very busy month with classes, labs, and all the things that make graduate student life so much, let's say, fun. Much time gets consumed by homework from classes like statistical mechanics, but there has still been some time at least to travel to someone special and to relax a bit a read a book or two.

More interestingly, there is a comet up in the sky right now, Lulin, but it below fifth magnitude so it's pretty much impossible for me to see in the city. However, if you can, check it out while it's around; the comet is around Saturn right now, close to the constellation Leo, so it is up almost all night.

Speaking of stars, I have perused the Internet to find a website that went after my article in S&T from 2007, along with pretty much all of biblical studies that came down against the historicity of the Star of Bethlehem. I contacted the creator of the long web article about a couple of things that I thought were erroneous, such as comets were not seen as evil omens in Babylon (the Enuma Ana Enlil and MUL.APIN say otherwise), the Greek verb proago does not mean lead or go forward (it does, and it certainly does so in the context of Matt 2:9), epano does not mean to be right over a particular place (completely false), that proago was in the imperfect aorist tense (such a tense is impossible linguistically and logically), and so on. After some exchange the main page of the article has been taken down, for revisions I suspect. Another of his pages mentions revisions, but I haven't noticed any, at least not important ones.

Since our exchange, he hasn't contact me concerning my last statements, but life is time consuming, so I don't necessarily take it to be an attempt to dodge my points. Perhaps he is researching my arguments. Perhaps he will show the errors of my way, along with most of biblical scholarship and all scholars of the world that say comets were almost universally seen as evil omens--in particular, the author does not provide a single primary or secondary source that says Babylonians or Persians saw comets as positive omens, while I have provided primary sources to the contrary.

As for articles, it appears that I will be having one of my own writings published in the Journal of Higher Criticism in the near future. Under the new publishing system, the next issue will come out when there is at least 150 pages of material. Currently, it is up to 94 pages. It makes me so impatient, but good things come to those who wait. None the less, this means that I will have something published in a biblical studies journal! That should already give me more credibility than most all researchers into the Star of Bethlehem who haven't published in peer-reviewed biblical or theological journals in about a generation, and almost never astronomers.

With all that out of the way, it's time to get to work, and travel back to Michigan. Monday night at Michigan State, biologist and well-known atheist Richard Dawkins will begin touring the US on a speaking run. I plan on going. And if someone has a lot of cash, give it to Ray Comfort so he can give it to Richard Dawkins. Well, perhaps not. Why give to Mr. Comfort and give him enough credence, believing that he can actually produce a coherent argument against, well, most anything, let along evolutionary science.

The Third Reich and the Holocaust--By Darwin or by God's Will?

Since the primary claim of the movie Expelled, hosted by Ben Stein to the point of teary-eyed boredom, is to make the connection between Darwin's theory of natural selection and the events of the Holocaust, I have decided to look critically at what were the major motivations of the Third Reich's will to kill off millions of Jews and other "undesirables" during Word War II.

Before I get into this, let me first start with Hitler's nemesis, Joseph Stalin, leader of the USSR during the Second World War. Stalin's tyranny in Russia was comparable to that of Hitler in Germany, killing off many opponents, both real and imagined. From what I can tell, when it comes to saying who was more evil--Stalin or Hitler--the jury is still out. Stalin's only saving grace would be winning the war and stopping Hitler. This hardly gets him off the hook for being cruel, but let's leave this aside. When it comes to Stalin, did evolutionary thinking come to mind? Did he accept Darwinian evolution and apply it to his populace? The answer is an emphatic no. Stalin did not accept Darwinian evolution--instead, he took on the debunked Lamarkian evolutionary scheme of nature, a theory which had been disproved and disbanded mostly before Darwin wrote his Origin of Species. So, before Stein makes a sequel to Expelled trying to link Stalin to Darwin, this bud should be properly nipped.

So, on to the meat and potatoes of this post. The thesis of the movie is this (the quoted material is at the bottom of the page and needs to be highlighted to be seen):

Many scenes are centered around the Berlin Wall, and Ben Stein being Jewish actually visits many death camps and death showers. In fact, Nazi Germany is the thread that ties everything in the movie together. Evolution leads to atheism leads to eugenics leads to Holocaust and Nazi Germany.

What elements played in the minds of Hitler and other high-up officials in the Third Reich that caused one of the worst abominations to humanity? Firstly, how much of the element is based on divine thinking?

A lot. Let us look at what Hitler had to say about his motivations:

Firstly, was Hitler an atheist? Let's see what are some of the things he said and did. When Hitler came to power as Chancellor of Germany on January 30, 1933, his actions after that spoke loudly. One of his earliest actions came less than one month after Hitler became Chancellor when he began a campaign against the "godless movement".

A campaign against the "godless movement" was announced by Bernard Rust, Nazi commissioner for education and culture in Prussia, in an address Tuesday night before students at the technical university here. He said the details would be revealed in the next few days. In his speech opening the campaign for the Reichstag and Prussian diet elections, Hitler attacked communists for the spread of atheism. (Hitler Aims Blow at 'Godless' Move, Lansing State Journal, February 23, 1933)

The same report from the AP says that Hitler is [was] a Catholic. Thus, according to the papers, Hitler fought against the godless and wanted Catholic support for this. So, if the Stein thesis is to be taken seriously, it has already reached a major hurdle: if evolution leads to atheism and Hitler believed in evolution and it did not lead to atheism in the Nazi movement, then the first premise is falsified.

Hitler's words in Mein Kampf are also illuminating.

His life is really only of this world, and his spirit is as alien to true Christianity, for instance, as his nature was two thousand years ago to the Sublime Founder of the new doctrine...But for this [opposing the Jews], of course, Christ was crucified, while our present party Christianity disgraces itself begging for Jewish votes in the elections and later tries to conduct political wirepulling with atheistic Jewish parties, and this against their own nation (pp. 422-3).

Note especially the link between atheism and Jews; that is, Hitler links his racial hatred and the people he considered to be the cause of Germany's problems to be in the same boat as atheists. We can also see that this element comes about from Hitler's Christian faith that is quite antisemitic. Hitler also says that a Jewish state be less spiritual and "religion is ridiculed" (p. 450). Further on April 26, 1933, Hitler signed the Nazi-Vatican Concordat, and stated:

Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without religious foundation is built on air; consequently all character training and religion must be derived from faith... (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, Oxford University Press, 1942).

A concordat is an agreement between a religious organization and at political body of another nation. So, not only was the Nazi party siding against atheist and atheism, but it was working with the Vatican. So, where is Hitler's atheism?

There is only one source in all the literature that gives us any hint that Hitler lacked a theistic belief. This would be Hitler's Table Talk, a collection of accounts of what the Furer said. The notes taken come primary from the years 1941-2. However, these very few statements which seem to run contrary to Hitler's other deeds and statements, appear to be forgeries by a French-speaking Swiss man, Francois Genoud, how was one of the primary translators of one of the manuscript traditions of Table Talk (Richard Carrier, "Hitler's Table Talk, Troubling Finds" German Studies Review 26:3 October 2003). In the other manuscript tradition(s), these key anti-Christian statements are either absent or they are the exact opposite of what Hitler was made out to say. For example, in the version that comes from Genoud reads as such: "Our epoch will see the end of the disease of Christianity." However, the better version does not include this statement at all. There is one point that is more-or-less anti-Catholic in which Hitler disagrees with the idea of the one true church (die alleinseligmachende Kirche). And that is about it when it comes to Hitler being an atheist. The only last thing that can possibly make him so would be Hitler's use of Nietzsche, but Nietzsche was an anti-antisemite and anti-nationalist. Just read Nietzsche's The Gay Science (I prefer the Kaufmann translation) and you can see how this criticism of nationalism in Germany (and other nations for that matter) as well as antisemitism. Further, Nietzsche broke off his friendship with Richard Wagner, the great composer known best for his Ride of the Valkyries, because Wagner had strong antisemitic tendencies. This is all well known and need not be taken apart in detail.

So, it seems that atheism was not in the mindset of the Fuhrer, and I know of nothing that says any other high-ranking official was an atheist in the Nazi party. In fact, the details given above would suggest that allegiance to the party required a theistic stance, since it was communists that were atheists. But was there at least Darwinism in there?

To answer this question, a bit of digging into the Nazi archives is needed. Die Bücherei, the official Nazi journal, in 1935 produced a list of things not to be taught:

Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (279).

Apparently, the science was not allowed and was rejected between the times of Hitler's rise to power and the Final Solution.

What about Hitler's magnum opus? In Mein Kampf, the word "Darwin" in any form does not appear at all. In only six cases do I find anything in relation to biological evolution (though the word "revolution" is used ad nauseum by Hitler). Let us see if Hitler actually understood biology all that well. In the first case, Hitler talks about the strong not breeding with the weak. However, Hitler is mistaken when he says "[e]very crossing between two breeds which are not quite equal results in a product which holds an intermediate place between the levels of the two parents." The point of sexual reproduction is that genetic information can get swapped around into new combinations that can bring about offspring with characteristics that are superior to the previous genome from either parent. Otherwise, why not just still with asexual reproduction and just "clone" oneself? Also, this notion of a place "between" parents in quality is a human construct here, for the sense of "better" does not exist in nature--only better adapted. Besides, if this was how nature worked, species could never get "better" but only reach some sort of medium amongst all the breeding members of a population; there is no "goo, to the zoo, and then to you" as creationists say in this paradigm. This sort of thinking from Hitler is not to be found in Darwin's Origin; rather, it comes from Hitler's (poor) understanding of nature, and I can bet the farm that he did not examine nature as carefully as Charles Darwin. Hitler also errs in the same paragraph when he says "for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all."

Moving on, we find this next statement:

If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.

Here Hitler makes the common mistake that most Creationists make, that evolution has a hierarchy of what speices are "better" or "worse" than another. It is simply false; species (or races) are only better or worse adapted to their environment. What is "better" to humans is completely subjective. For example, which is better: greater strength or greater intelligence? Both have advantages and one without the other can be poorly adaptive. Another example: better food-gatherer or a better lover in bed? The later has the obvious advantage of producing more children, though the former is good in making sure those offspring are fed. Again, it is a matter of balancing what is better for a given situation. As for morally better, that first requires knowing what things are and are not moral, to which arguments are without end. In any case, it has nothing to do with biological evolution.

The next point where Hitler mentions evolution in a biological setting has little to do with racism; it is more in relation to evolutionary psychology, and Hitler is no Steven Pinker. Hitler speaks of the formation of instincts in higher forms of animals, of things going from the conscious to the subconscious. Firstly, to have something be done consciously in order to change the phenotypes of a race is not Darwinian but Lamarkian evolution. Further, Hitler's argument would have us believe than lower animals were self-aware, when it seems to be the case that instincts have formed in all creatures, even though that are no self-aware, such as dolphins and primates. Again, Hitler demonstrates his lack of understanding of nature.

Hitler's next statement is of little consequence: "Organization is a thing that derives its existence from organic life, organic evolution."

Every other times Hitler uses "evolution" it is a context of social or political evolution. Thus, biology is only a subtext to further his argument for what the State should do or has done. But there is one question that remains: how much of this understanding is Darwinian or necessarily based on Darwinian theory? From what I can tell, not in the least. His proposals on life's evolution is more Lamarkian than Darwinian and his understanding of genetics is not worth talking about. Further, his understanding of breeding is in the category of what humans had been doing for centuries with dogs, cows, horses, plants, etc. Artificial selection was something well understood before Darwin was born; even our most primitive ancestors that farmed had a sense of this form of breeding. Because of this already existing knowledge, not to mention that Darwin is never mentioned in Mein Kampf, nor the phrase "survival of the fittest", the connection between Darwin and the Nazi movement is not apparent; worse, Hitler's notions are contrary to Darwin's work at times.

In a survey of other materials on the web from those that argue Hitler's ideology is based on Darwinian thinking, no other examples seem to exist. Rather, the arguments presented appear to be more in tune with the line of thought that because Darwin showed humans are animals then their moral worth is minimized. This is simply then a con-job, taking the wool over the eyes of the reader so that they do not ask for direct evidence of Darwinian thinking in the Holocaust. The argument is not that Hitler was a Darwinist, but that he saw no value in certain humans. And since very few examples where Darwin is shown to be the primary influence, it seems worthy to investigate a different source for Hitler's policies.

Let us now look at what Hitler believed when it came to religion. I have already pointed out that he was not an atheist and there is no evidence he ever was. The papers reported he was a Catholic and nothing seems to contradict this--he may not have been an ideal Catholic since he did not accept the church to be the only way to heaven, but he still qualifies as a Christian. In Hitler's statements he seems to actually use religion as the reason for his actions against Jews:

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord (Mein Kampf, p. 65)

Also in the same books:

A folk-State should in the first place raise matrimony from the level of being a constant scandal to the race. The State should consecrate it as an institution which is called upon to produce creatures made in the likeness of the Lord and not create monsters that are a mixture of man and ape.

The mixing of races then is not simply a matter of biology; it is a matter of keeping humans in the likeness of God. Hitler repeats this thought later on:

Their very existence [of Jews] is an incarnate denial of the beauty of God's image in His creation.

Hitler also prays in his book:

Almighty God, bless our arms when the hour comes. Be just, as Thou hast always been just. Judge now if we deserve our freedom. Lord, bless our struggle.

There are no prayers to Darwin, or to science, or to reason for that matter. When it comes to science, Hitler is actually more likely a Creationist. As seen above, he invoked The Creation into his argument. In other parts, it is even clearer his thoughts on science.

In the first edition of Mein Kampf Hitler said "this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men" (p. 65). In the second edition, "thousands" is changed to millions. The world was not devoid of humans thousands of years ago. The first Homo sapiens sapiens existed over 100,000 years ago. However, if Hitler lacked clarity there in other places it is more clear:

The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise (p. 383).

Also:

Thus they put an end to their own separate existence; for the original sin committed in Paradise has always been followed by the expulsion of the guilty parties.

Apparently, Hitler believed in the creation of humans in God's image and the expulsion from Paradise as recounted in Genesis. And another point helps as well in showing that Hitler believed God was the Creator:

What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, . . . so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe (p. 214).

How about some more?

The act which brings about such a development [of the superiority of races being lowered] is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator. And as a sin this act will be avenged.

It seems pretty obvious that Hitler believed in a creator god and had a notion of sin. He believed in the Garden of Eden, in a young earth, and argued that the lessening in quality of the Aryan race was against, not Nature, but God. Natural selection is not part of the equation at all in Mein Kampf. This line of thought was repeated by Hitler even after he came to power. On August 26, 1934:

National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary it stands on the ground of a real Christianity....For their interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of to-day, in our fight against a Bolshevist culture, against atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for a consciousness of a community in our national life... These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles! (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, Oxford University Press, 1942.)

Also notice that Hitler was against any "atheist movement[s]" and that we stated what he did was based completely on Christian principles. Hector Avalos, an excellent biblical scholar, has put together a collection of points that show were such evil principles can come from in the Bible. One thing that he notes is that some of the defenders of genocide are in fact Christians! For example, Jonathan Sarfati, an Australian Young-Earth creationist with a Ph.D. in chemistry and mentioned on Answers in Genesis, defends the genocides of the Old Testament. There is also Reuben A. Torrey, the famed fundamentalist apologist. However, what really scared me was that William Lang Craig, probably one of the smartest Christian apologists today, defends the genocides done by the Jews in the Old Testament because God said it was the thing to do. So, if God says it is okay to kill any number of people, then it is morally okay. This to me is sickening and frightening. This means that if Craig has a bad sandwich last night, had a dream that had Jesus telling him to kill anyone that is critical of him, and Craig reads this blog, then Craig would fell justified in killing me in cold blood without a second thought. And this is perhaps the smartest of the Christians. Well, no wonder Hitler could justify the Holocaust based on God-think!

Now, I could add more quotes from Hitler and other Nazis to make the point, but it would be of little value. What is obvious is that Darwinian evolution had little or nothing to do with Hitler's policies, while his Christian faith was a much more prominent element in his determination for killing Jews. And with the antisemitism of the New Testament, that is not hard to do. Matthew 27:25 has the Jews accepting the blame for the death of Jesus. Acts 3:14-5 repeats the charge, which is repeated many more times in Acts. Paul seems to say this too in 1 Thessalonians 2:15-6. The Catholic Church did not remove the charge of deicide from the heads of all Jews until Vatican II under Pope John XXIII. And according to Christopher Hitches in god is Not Great, the only high-ranking Nazi to be excommunicated was Joseph Guebbels. Why? Because of his crimes against humanity? He married a Protestant. Pope Pius XII never excommunicated any Nazi (R.L. Simpson, "Vatican charges it is target of a 'slanderous campaign' in connection with Pope Pius XII." Associated Press, 2001-AUG-07) though he did excommunicate a few German Catholics for choosing cremation.

So, to say that Hitler's actions were pro-Darwin and anti-Christian is unfounded and the reverse is more likely. However, one should also consider the historical circumstances. After all, Britain did not have a campaign to wide out Jews like Nazi Germany did, nor did France or the USA. Firstly, it must be remembered that Hitler had an abusive father, as did Stalin, so the psychology of such an evil person is more likely due to his upbringing than his denomination. Further, Germany had gone through a terrible war, a humiliating defeat, and a devastated economy. Hitler's message of national hope and promise, coupled with the citing of the agent that destroyed Germany (the Jews in Hitler's mind, and many others as well), combined with the prejudices ingrained into the people that Hitler commanded--these agencies seem to be much more likely candidates for what caused the Holocaust. It would be sloppy to say any one agent brought about the evils of the Third Reich. Simply blaming it on Darwin or Christian dogma would be foolish. Of the two, Christianity was by far the more potent in causing the Holocaust, but not all Christians are mass murders, so more elements are required than just indoctrination. However, it must also be pointed out that Christian morals did not cease the growth of the Nazi party and many followed Hitler because of religious reasons. The evidence of this can be seen on the belt buckles of Nazi soldiers.
And even to the end of the war, there were those that saw Nazism consistent with Christian dogma (Richard Steigmann–Gall, The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919–1945 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003) p. 5). After all, Martin Luther's tract On the Jews and Their Lies is antisemitic through and through. So, any argument that Christian morality could have kept the Fuhrer in check seems to be lacking (that includes your work, Denish D'Souza).

So, does evolution lead to atheism? Probably not, at least not without another agency, since there are millions of people that are religious and accept Darwinian evolution, including the Vatican and biologists Ken Miller and Francis Collins. Does atheist lead to Nazism (with or without eugenics)? Apparently it could not since atheistic groups were antithetical to the Nazis. Does Darwinism lead to Nazism? No, since Darwin was not used by Hitler in his book, his understanding of evolution is primitive at worst, Lamarkian at best, and not educated by the work of Charles Darwin. (The same goes for Stalin.) Hence, the premise is completely false which Ben Stein bases his entire movie on. It is demonstrably false and the accusation he and other creationists give could be considered libel and/or slander.

One final note: it does not matter even if Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Saddam, etc. based their thinking on Darwinian evolution. It does nothing to demonstrate it is a false concept. Further, the use of evolution to make moral judgments goes against what all moral theorists must grapple with: Hume's is-ought problem. What Creationists keep doing is making the naturalistic fallacy. So, when the entire basis for the arguments about Hitler et. al. are based on a logical fallacy, then the historical analysis after it fails to convince no matter the case. But by being logically fallacious and historically inept, the production of this material by Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Ben Stein, any many others for that matter, it shows that Creationists only have propaganda, not substance, and have been nothing but deceitful.

I doubt that this one blog post will convince such persons to end their use of this argument, since they depend on it for its emotional baggage, but hopefully this can make at least some people more immune to the powerfully ignorant and deceptive statements that will be in a theater near you.

That Was Fast

Last time I blogged, the Atheist and Agnostic Group on MySpace had been deactivated, apparently by methods that seemed foul. Apparently, just two days after the story hit the press (and I talked about it) the group is back up, though not at 100% since some people are still blocked and MySpace is unable to unblock for some reason.

I don't know if this is because of the media coverage, but since the group went down on January 1st, after being harassed for a month before, and the group came back just a couple of days after the reports went public, it sure is hard to not make such an inference. Further, MySpace has, as of yet, given no reason for the shutdown and return of the group. It sounds like a bunch of people that were not doing their jobs properly and are now trying to rectify those issues without doing too much damage to the ego, let alone appear to be intolerant to certain groups.

Now, perhaps the groups canceling was not motivated by such things and it is inappropriate to jump to the conclusion of someone taking their prejudices out on atheist, as I may have in my last post, to which I should say it seems now to have been a bit over the top on my part. However, there are many unanswered questions: why was the group shut down, why was a petition with 500+ signatures to get the group back ignored, why did the group only return after press coverage, and why was the return of the group not explained as well? Add all of that to the fact that the group was attacked and hacked as well as its moderator and the reaction at MySpace was to kill the group off. It just does not bode well for the people managing the place.

Until some sort of explanation can come to light on the part of the administrators of MySpace, it seems that someone was playing hard and fast with a group that had a contrary philosophy to the person that decided what the fate of the group should be. Note, however, that I do not mean to say there is a conspiracy at that place, as it seems to be implied in my previous post. More likely it was one or two people who got in trouble only when their bosses got word of this when it became big in the media.

A Day That Will Live In Infamy

I would imagine that most people that frequent the blogosphere are very aware of the Internet networking site MySpace. You should also be aware of the fact that in 2005, MySpace was purchased by the conglomeration run by Rupert Murdock (owner of News Corporation), best known for being the owner of Fox News (Faux News or Fox Noise amongst liberals).

If you are reading this then, you need to be aware of the former MySpace group: Atheist and Agnostic Group. Why is this of interest? It was the largest network/collection/community of nonbelievers in the world! At its peak, the A and A group had over 35,000 members and was one of the largest groups in the category of religion and belief on MySpace and also quite large overall. Perhaps you have noticed that I kept using the past tense when talking about this group.

This in because, on the first of January, 2008, the group was shut down by MySpace. I know this because of other blogs, but also because I was a member of that group. I had been inactive for some time, and perhaps that helped this happen to some degree.

I knew the people in the group well, those that were active participants. In fact, in April 2007, a number of us met in Boston for the annual humanist convention at Harvard University. So, I personally came to know the moderator of the Atheist and Agnostic Group, a Mr. Bryan J. Pesta, Ph.D. in cognitive science. A great guy who went by the nickname of Fearless Group Leader (FGL), but also having the screen name of "An Inordinate Fondness of Beetles." I hope you get the joke.

What is less funny is that the group had been shut down before, before I had joined the group in late 2005. Fortunately, FGL personally knew the creator of MySpace, Tom, who returned the group to its former state and promised to keep it alive. That was before the sale of MySpace to News Corp. In November 2007, the group was again shut down, came back to life, and was again (and perhaps permanently) on January 1, 2008, five minutes after notifying FGL of the decision to close the group.

I will now let Bryan say the rest, as he has posted on his MySpace profile page. I do this in case the page is also lost in the near future by other groups.

Update: 1/30/08, 10:00 p.m. EST.

Thanks sincerely to all who sent emails or forwarded the press release (real big thanks to the Secular Student Alliance and the Humanist Chaplain from Harvard). Myspace hasn't yet responded, and our group is still deleted.

Short FAQ based on some of the emails I got:

Q1) How do you know the group was deleted for religious reasons?

A1)I have no smoking gun. I cannot produce any internal Myspace memo saying "crush the heathens".

However, I assert that our group's history up to its recent deletion (1/1/8) establishes a prima facie case that we were deleted for religious reasons:

Note first that I ran the group for almost 3 years, and was very careful to not violate any TOS.

We were deleted two years ago due to complaints from a group called the "Christian Crusaders." They would search Myspace for profiles they found offensive, and then mass complain to customer service.

Their strategy was to send so many emails to customer service that someone, somewhere at Myspace would delete the profile or group.

It worked. They were able to get us deleted for a few weeks til myspace restored us (pre-news corp; Tom Anderson, himself posted to our group offering to protect us). The "Christian Crusaders" also got many other groups and profiles deleted, including a large pro abortion group.

Three months ago, my account was hacked. The hacker took control of the group and renamed it "Jesus is love".

It took almost a month of constant emailing to Myspace just to get them to restore the group. I lost my profile (3000 friends; dozens of blogs), and the hacker banned many regular users.

Banning on a Myspace group is oddly permanent / can't be undone. So, I sent more requests asking Myspace to un-ban my regulars.

I got an email back-- finally; after about 3 weeks of requests for help-- saying "thank you for the information. We have scheduled the group for deletion."

Literally 5 minutes later, the group was deleted. I think it's ironic that Myspace's response to my persistent and sincere request for help was to delete the group!

I hope that puts our deletion in context. Add to that, the biggest xtian group here was deleted not too long ago (post news corp) and Myspace Tom personally restored it.

Do I think Myspace is an evil atheist hating conspiracy-- no. Do I think an agent of Myspace deleted my group because it was an atheist group. Yes.

I realize this is circumstantial evidence; but I think the case outlined above is strong enough to warrant my conclusion, and I am waiting to see if Myspace replies.

Q2) You realize that Myspace is privately owned; you have no right to free speech there; they can delete content at will?

A2) I do; but I think Myspace deleting atheist groups is equivalent to a restaurant refusing to serve minorities. Myspace provides a free service, yet it benefits tremendously ($$$) only because users provide content. As a for-profit, I suspect Myspace has some duty of equal protection to all members of protected classes. If Myspace deleted the largest African American group here, no one would tolerate that. Why should we tolerate it for any minority group?

I’m not trying to be dramatic. My experience is nothing like the typical civil rights violation, but I believe it is nonetheless a violation. I’m not sure where the line is drawn between trivial violations and ones-worth-fighting for. I personally think this one’s worth fighting for.

I feel our group had value; we helped give a misunderstood (and often despised) minority a sense of community. The fact that 35,000 people took the proactive step of joining the group (even if most never posted) suggests that it had value. The emails I got today from regulars and strangers suggests that it had value.

Personally, the three years I invested in maintaining the group (and the blogs on my deleted profile) had value to me. So, I think trying to get the group back is a rational investment of my time.

Further, I’m not asking for a march on the capital. I just want our group back.

***

Press release!

January 21, 2008
For Release: Immediately Upon Receipt
Contact: Bryan J. Pesta, Ph.D.,
216-687-4749 b.pesta@csuohio.edu

Myspace Deletes Largest Atheist Group in the World.

Cleveland, OH.— Social networking cite, Myspace.com, panders to religious intolerants by deleting atheist users, groups and content.

Early this month, Myspace again deleted the “Atheist and Agnostic Group (35,000 members). This deletion, due largely to complaints from people who find atheism offensive, marks the second time Myspace has cancelled the group since November 2007.

What’s unique in this case is that the Atheist and Agnostic Group was the largest collection of organized atheists in the world. The group had its own Wikipedia entry, and in April won the Excellence in Humanist Communication Award (2007) from the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard University and The Secular Student Alliance.

“Myspace refuses to undelete the group, although it never violated any terms of service,” said Bryan Pesta, Ph.D., the group’s moderator. “When the largest Christian group was hacked, Myspace’s Founder, Tom Anderson, personally restored the group, and promised to protect it from future deletions.”

“It is an outrage if Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation and the world’s largest social networking site tolerate discrimination against atheists and agnostics-- and if this situation goes unresolved I’ll have little choice but to believe they do,” said Greg Epstein, Humanist Chaplain of Harvard University. News Corporation, Murdoch’s global media corporation which also includes Fox News, purchased MySpace in 2005.

“My personal profile was deleted as well, and despite weeks of emails to customer service, plus a petition signed by 500 group members, Myspace won’t budge. I think these actions send a clear message to the 30 million godless people in America (and to businesses whose money was spent displaying ads on our group) that we are not welcome on Myspace,” said Pesta.

For a Wikipedia article on the now defunct atheist and agnostic group, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist_and_Agnostic_Group.

For links to Pesta’s defunct group and profile, visit http://www.myspace.com/aiffb.

###

Needs restoring: Old profile: id=1120061 Old Group: id=100002606
(Link)

Here are some further links:
http://www.secularstudents.org/node/1933
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist_and_Agnostic_Group
http://www.thenewhumanism.org/?page_id=13
http://www.cleveland.com/plaindealer/stories/index.ssf?/base/living-0/1201772086310820.xml&coll=2
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/01/should_i_go_or_should_i_stay.php

It is also interesting to note that the Wikipedia page on the group was edited by a person named GravityExNihilo, who was a member of the group, and not an atheist if that was still the case in December 2007, first wrote about the attacks in December of 2007. Further edits have taken place.

This whole thing burns me. It was a great group, discussing rather low topics (the Boos Thread was particularly long) to rather intellectual discussions (such as the differences between potential and actual infinities and how they may pertain to a deity when applying Russell's Paradox from set theory). The people I met were wonderful in person, and even though many others were not the most amiable in the forums, where still genuinely good people. And now they are being discriminated against.

I want to avoid slippery slope arguments, but if News Corp/MySpace can feel justified in shutting down this group, what other places are atheists not going to be allowed to traverse on the Internet in large numbers? We have all already seen how other groups have tried to use legal muscle to try and silence non-theistic and rational voices, such as with Creation Science Evangelism and the Disco Institute I mentioned previously. Obvously YouTube is also willing to let such materials be taken down. This with the growing efforts to force Intelligent Design into public schools, the Institute for Creation Research trying to get a legitimate degree program in Texas, and not to mention candidates having to pass ipso facto religious tests for office and even promoting changing the Constitution in order to have it conform to Biblical beliefs (thank you Mike Huckabee); all this is becoming rather frightening. I don't worry for my personal safety, but such a reduction in the ability to freely express oneself and to inquire freely is not something that should be tolerated.

Will the group be restored? It may take a lot of prodding. A letter with 500 signatures apparently did nothing to make the operators of MySpace think twice about the decision. It seems obvious to me that it was not an unbiased decision and likely a religiously motivated one. After all, the people of Fox News are conservative in most every sense of the word, including in Christian values/beliefs.

Should it not be seen as odd what is happening here in another sense. According to the Book of Acts, the Disciples were given the gift of tongues, able to speak any language. Apparently, this was a misreporting on the author's part--the gift was not tongues but the ability to stop the tongues of others. When it comes to spreading dogma, this is just as effective and desired.

I hope anyone that reads this makes some noise. Write letters to MySpace; make blog posts; produce YouTube videos, tell a friend. Just get the word out. Also, protesting in keeping youself away from News Corp products may also be a good idea. I think deleting MySpace pages is a good idea, as well as not watching Fox News (suck it Billo!).

At least I feel safe enough on blogger.com. It is under Google, and they have a simple slogan: Don't be evil. Hopefully, that policy is not based on rules of Leviticus (see Deuteronomy 13).

Blog Out

Because of a recent discovery, thanks to some of the other blogs I read, I have now added this blog to an Atheist Blogroll. That is, it is a list of a large number of active blogs by atheists, mostly talking about that subject, but hopefully more as well. There can only be so many ways to debunk a certain religious belief. A good examples, and a very popular one, is Pharyngula, written by a developmental biologist PZ Myers. But, I am an astronomer so I have to like Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy, plus he does some work for SETI's podcast Are We Alone. So, you should see a list of the blogs currently on the roll call, along with a link to the complete list. At this point it has well over 400 blogs. Don't expect to read them all.

Dubito, . . . I think: Non-Contradiction and How You Can't Contradict It

Perhaps you have come across someone that uses a presupposition's argument about how an atheist cannot account for logic itself, and hence such a person cannot reason without God. After all, to demonstrate that the law of non-contradiction is logical, one must apply logic and this law, hence creating a circular argument. And so, the person will try to argue, something outside of logic, something truly amazing is required in order to make sure logic exists, and that being is the Deity.

Of course, most don't just stop and say this proves that there is a god, but that this proves in fact the Christian God; I haven't heard the argument used by Muslim apologists, or any other religion for that matter, though they could probably be just as able to say the same things. To get to this position about the existence of the Christian concept of the divine requires more than just the existence of logic, but since they think they already have logic on their side because of their theism, the rest will follow for them, either by faith or further argumentation, such as the historicity of the Resurrection.

But, it should also be noticed that by setting up the case that a particular religion has the proper understanding of the force behind logic in fact makes is susceptible to to that same logic which can disprove the entire edifice. Let us take if for granted that logic in some way is emanated by the divine; it should follow then that because logic is so important to this god that all of the tenants about that god should follow the principles of logic. If they have accepted the law of non-contradiction, and they argue that it is true because of their religious beliefs, then it follows that their religion cannot have any breaks from this law. This means that even one contradiction, one flaw in the entire belief structure or scripture or concept of god then the entire argument that logic comes from that god is destroyed. It is so plainly easy to find a single contradiction in the numerous sayings or the religious, the writings of the theologians, the remarks of the apostles, etc. The Skeptic's Annotated Bible includes a massive list of contradictions in the Bible, along with contradictions in the Qur'an and the Book of Mormon. As you can see, in order for any particular theism, other than Deism perhaps, the strategy that the beliefs must be perfect will require so much apologetic work that the entire idea of making God the source of logic a lost cause.

What we can see here is that in fact the notion of forcing the atheist to account for reason itself is simply a debating tactic, something to trip up the debater from showing the errors in the others belief system. The entire notion of pressupositionalist arguments is to say that since there is something wrong, anything wrong, with my world view, then one must default to some religious view and say goddidit with great frequency. The standard of perfection or theism is an amazingly high standard, one that cannot be met by anyone because there is not enough computing power in the universe to see if there are any possible contradictions between all the views a person may take. Besides consistency does not mean that it is necessarily true; if my belief that the world is spherical contradicts some political policy I have adhere to, it does not follow then that all is false, that the world is not necessarily round. Besides, the concept of goddidit for all answers can be consistent, but if there is no God, then the world view must be in error.

But perhaps we should take up the gauntlet of the arguers, take up the case that logic is supported in some fashion by a god, or any being for that matter. It seems that the statement that logic is "true" because god said so seems to beg some form of the old Euthyphro Dilemma:

Is something logical because god says it is logical,
or does god say something is logical because it is so?

If one takes the latter part of the dilemma, then it suggests that logic is independent of that god altogether. If instead one take the former, then it makes the laws of logic arbitrary, that logic is no more true than anything else; we have a super form of relativism, but there is at least something that will force you to obey it.

But perhaps you don't have a problem with logic, and morality for that matter, being arbitrary. Well, here is an interesting question: since god created the laws of logic, then can god break the law of non-contradiction? Suppose no--if that is the case, then that seems to say that logic makes the god subservient to the creation, which seems to be an unlikely situation. More interestingly, suppose yes--if god can break the law of non-contradiction, then god can exist and not exist at the same time. Therefore, that god does not exist is a true statement about god. Ergo, god does not exist. What this means that if god is in fact powerful enough to break the laws of logic, then god does not exist. With such a twist, it seems to be untenable to say that anything is the source of logic.

This is certainly fun to take the theists argument and make it mean that god does not exist, but one can still charge that logic is still not supported and so to use it cannot be meaningful to one that denies it. So, can logic be accounted for?

Now, it seems odd to even ask the question--to suppose that logic comes from something suggests that it could not exist. However, it is not fathomable to say that the law of non-contradiction could not be a true law, that it seems to be a necessary thing in the universe; the law's existence could not be otherwise. This is demonstrated by simply trying to deny its validity. Suppose you say that the law of non-contradiction is false. By your statement, then two opposite statements can both be true. This means that you say the law of non-contradiction is not false, that is, true. Hence, by denying the non-contradiction, you agree with non-contradiction. This means it cannot be denied, hence undeniable. And so, by this bit of word play, we can see that non-contradiction is a necessary thing in the universe. As a simple proof of it (non-contradiction):

If it is true, it is true.
If it is false, it is true.
QED.

In fact, we require it to be so just to be able to talk. If the law was not adhered to, then what I say also means what I did not say. In other words, by saying anything I have said nothing because it has no meaning. After all, the term is contra-diction: against speech. Hence, any civilization that produces language must adhere to this principle.

It would seem then that logic accounts for itself just fine; the denial of it is impossible and to declare its need for support from beyond itself will enter the paradox of its own nonexistence. So, if someone tries to badger on about this, just point out that it cannot be said to be otherwise, unlike gods. It is possible to say "there are no gods" without it being internally contradictory; this cannot be said about non-contradiction. Hence, there is nothing left to prove.

Non contradicto me, ergo constans sum, ergo ratione cogito.
___________________________________________________________________

I have found that Michael Martin has devoted much more time to these issues, so I must link to his arguments about the transcendental arguments for god (TAG):

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/logic.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/martin-frame/

Isn't it good to know smart people's arguments?

Outed

There has been a significant effort to try to make the presence of atheists known. It is interesting to use the Scarlet Letter, as if I am demonstrating adultery instead of non-belief. But since that book wasn't very good, in my opinion, nor is it widely read (nor should it), let the letter be used; the stigma will exist none the less. Besides, when one is unmarried it is difficult to commit adultery.

Pick, Choose, Lose

You almost certainly have heard the retort to those that claim we need to do away with religion and religious morality that without that pillar of religion we could not possibly know what is moral and immoral. Somehow, after so many years, after so many philosophers have ponders this subject, somehow so many talk-show hosts, theologians, and regular people think that this is a proper retort. They may know that at some level it does not prove that some god exists, but it gives them the justification to believe. I wish to demonstrate the intrinsic error in the thinking of such persons and thus show the argument is self-refuting.
Firstly, a question: "Has anyone heard of the Euthyphro dilemma?" In one dialog of Plato 2400 years ago, our interlocutor demonstrated the absurdity of morality coming from a divine source. "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" Similarly: "Is the good loved by the god(s) because it is good, or is it good because it is loved by the god(s)?" All of the attempts to try to get past this dilemma are based on attempts to make the definition of god malleable enough to make good and god one in the same. This does nothing because by defining god as good, the term good then loses its meaning; an action is called good only because it is what god did; if he had done something else, that would have been good as well. Of course, should I do the same, somehow I may be charged with a crime. Hence, the action must have a level of goodness to it even if not done by any gods. Aquinas' sophistry is no rescue.
Further, within the moral context of religion, we are truly doomed. Take religious belief X and religious belief Y. According to the X religious moralist, the things deemed good and evil by the deity of X are in fact good and evil; similarly is the case for the Y religious moralist. We know from experience that certain religions will have different moral precepts, otherwise what distinguishes them are inconsequential. Judaism does not allow the eating of pork; Jainism does not allow harm to come to even the smallest creature; the Mezo-American religions of the past had human sacrifice; homosexuality is taboo in many belief systems; etc. Within this context then, how does a moral sanction in X and another in Y work with each other? What I mean is this: in X, some moral precept will be different from that in Y; in fact, X may call something in Y immoral. He says this because of X. Y does not accept this because of the precepts of Y, and Y may even charge X with similar statements of immorality. An example of this can be the case of homosexuality. Some churches today say it is sin; others are not claiming it is sin or wrong at all, even though they read the same holy book. Further, by condemning homosexuality, the latter church could claim the former church was acting immorally because of how they treated homosexuals and make them feel guilty unnecessarily. Both churches can make opposite claims, both claim that they are being moral, and claim the other is being immoral.
A certain word should come to mind here: relativism. That is what we have here with this situation of different religions. And it is ironic because the theist claims morality from god to ensure that it is absolute and not relative. And it is not always just about minor issues of what you can eat or how long your hair should be. We also have to deal with the oppression of half of the population because of their estrogen levels; countless holy wars have been issued based on revelation and textual clairvoyance; the nether-reaches of people are hacked away at; who you can commune with is limited; the examples are without end. And you would be hard-pressed to find agreement on these issues even within the larger spheres of any many religion. The Christians cannot agree about apostolic tradition or homosexuality or contraception, for example. And the things that almost all people would call evil has happened in the name of these theologies.
Now, one often hears the retort that we just need to weed out the bad theologies and leave the good ones. And how are we supposed to know what theologies are good and bad if what is good and bad is based on theology? The statement supposes that that person has the superior belief simply by the fiats of that belief. And the same statement could be made by Pope Urban II who preached for the First Crusade. From a religious morality, one cannot claim another religion is better than another without invoking some sort of absolutism, but that runs contrary to the very nature of religious morality--it is relativistic. This or that is good based on this or that theology.
Within the religious paradigm, one cannot claim that another religion is bad or immoral without becoming ridiculous. X and Y are in conflict, so how does another person, P, decide which is the one with the better morality? How can P say that Y is being immoral or X is? There are three choice: decide X is true; decide Y is true; decide that there is something other that X or Y to judge by them. Taking the first two options is without merit because it is a decision not based on morality because you are choosing that morality. The choice hence relative and meaningless to the person that chooses in an opposite case. To claim anything in X or Y is good or bad requires something to supersede both, and hence a morality must exist that is not based on any of these theologies. One may try and suppose a higher theology, but that only leads to an infinite regression.
And so we have secular ethics, being it utilitarianism of Kant's categorical imperative or something else, including our ethical instincts. It is the only thing that can possibly supersede the religious bickering and say that some theology did cause evils. The religious person cannot do that without contradicting themselves. If they claim that religions is the source of morality, but say some religions is immoral, then religions is a source for immorality; any religion can make the same statements, so they all contradict each other, all fall into relativism, and often violence ensues. Religious ethics causes only absolute relativism, the most dangerous ethical precept of all.
Can't all of these pundits on the radio or TV not see the contradiction in their statements, in saying religions does cause evils, but claim religions are causing evils within the religious context? All they can say is that the believe something is immoral from their perception of their theologian, which cannot cross over into another religion, perhaps not even another sect. In the case of sects based on the same holy book, one could claim that someone has a theology that is not based on that book, and so their morals coming from that sect are not true; however, it seems that such arguments of who has the correct interpretation are not going to be settled in any point in the future. The Pope has confirmed all non-Catholics are not "real" Christians; Shia and Sunni Muslims certainly do not agree about Ali and the imams; there are plenty of permutations of Judaism; Buddhism can be atheistic; sectarianism is without end. The relativism of interpretation is much the same as that relativism of morals--and worse is that it is absolute.
One cannot escape this problem. If one claims that someone is evil in the name of religion, they first have to demonstrate how it is good; but that religion was not chosen based on its goodness but on the sense of what that person already thought was good, meaning that that sense of morality must have existed before he chose; otherwise, the choice was ad hoc and carries no real weight. If morality is not relative, it must exist beyond the religious fray. Otherwise, we cannot say one religion is good and another is not.
As for most people, they should realize this, since they are not taking all that they have in their holy books to heart. Most people pick and choose what is right and wrong in their books. That choice cannot be made within the confines of that religion. If the book says "murder all infidels", you cannot within that same religious sphere of morality say that that is not a moral statement, even if it contradicts another passage, such as "don't kill, EVER". And how are those choices even made? Intrinsic understandings of what is good without the book. And fortunately, most people do not take every word of their holy books are strong as the next. Otherwise, we would be in the days of the Inquisition all over again. If you say the Inquisition was an immoral institution, that statement cannot be within religion.
Face it: you are moral because of some other factor--you know that acting morally is favorable in most cases. Why else would morality be called "good"? So, I ask that we realize that the basis of morals on religious leaders. Even Jesus was supposed to have said "Why do you call be good?" (Mark 10:18).

The Madman

Have you heard this tale, about the madman? As in all stories there can be found some truth, as well as some fiction. The fiction is that there is only one man. There is more than one of these madmen; they just seem to all be so similar. They all run into the villages, carrying their unlit lantern, crying “I have God, I have God!” What is his proof? He has the lantern, and it is lit because of the deity, that through this light comes the light to see what it good and evil, what is right and wrong, and, moreover, happiness because of the beauty of the light.

Many have claimed this light, many claim the light now, and probably many more will. That light has been called by many names: Zoroaster, Mohammad, Buddha, Jesus, and so many other permutations; so many exist that one could recreate all of the constellations in the sky, the Moon, the Sun, and the planets, and still have enough luminous power to see without any of the heavenly lights at all. With all of these light-bearers, isn’t it odd that you have not seen all of these lights? If fact, can you honestly see any of them at all?

One of the madmen will come to you and he will wave that lantern about, hoping that you will see the light he possesses so you know that he has the true God on his side. But like any madman, he cannot stand still, he cannot slow the pace, he cannot give you the moment to push off his antics by unanchored thought. Ask him to stop for a moment and let you see that light; he moves it about so quickly one cannot be sure if you saw that light or only thought you did. See if you can pin him for a moment to see his light, to see his morality that he claims to be so great, his spirit that is so unconquerable. Try and get close and watch the madman squirm; do not get too close, for that great good is also a great blunt beacon. Why does he not stand still? Why can we not look into the light?

And like all madmen, he has his excuses. “How can you think there is not a light here? How can you deny this thing? Are you questioning that there is good in the world?” Of course, you must be accused before your mouth can open, for otherwise you could question, you could seriously learn. But in the past, there have been some great wrestlers, and they have taken the lantern and found no light at all inside. The better lanterns actually reflect, not create or act as the source, of the light, and are only as bright as the luminous being are around.

How can this be? When the madman comes to your town, he will know about these failed charlatans. He will claim that they did not really have the light, that they were the few that only pretend to in fact have God. How can you tell if this person has the lantern that actually contains the light at all? Some will watch the madman and say that his lantern is also without light at all; some will even say that instead of creating light, this lantern absorbs, it darkens. The madman will retort “without this light, how can you say what is and is not bright, or what is or is not good?” Let the daemon inside allow you to ask “do you know that the lantern is bright because you say it is so, or do you say so because you know it is bright?” Euthyphro could not answer, nor can anyone, without realizing that we do not need the madman or his torch. For if the lantern of the madman was what determined what brightness was, what are we supposed to do about the next madman, with his own lantern, claiming all the same? How can we judge who has the true light if in fact it is the lantern that determines brightness? Shall we continue to believe these things in circles, or shall we look up and find that there is another source, one that anyone with eyes can see, that can be seen without these flimflam fires, and it is just above us all?

And what is the irony of this tale, for no tale is worth reading without a twist? As others have seen, that lantern is a reflector, it only directs light from another source; it cannot produce its own. It never has. It never could. It never will. And its own brightness has always depended on those sources around it. At one time, when we were all deep in the foul depths of the cave, light was scarce, tenuous, and never concentrated well enough to see before ourselves as we walked in the darkness. The lantern was the only object that was found as we groped the sides of the cavern, and we all became moths, even to the point that the lantern burned some.

Yet, somehow, someone stopped looking only at that lantern, and discovered other sources of light. The eye of the mind was able to peer deep into the outer reaches of the cave, and soon new illumination was discovered. With time, new torches were built, and the cave became easier to navigate.

But what is the irony, you ask? The lantern-bearer has two hands. One holds the light, which begins to become rather dim in comparison to these new torches; in the other, is the pale, filled with icy-cold water. Those new torches are extinguished as best he can, ensuring that his light is the only one, even though his own lantern becomes brighter. Some of these madmen will make adjustments to their lanterns so that they can claim that, even though these other lights do exist, because his light reflects theirs, his light becomes the only one that can see certain parts of the cave. Only with the better reflector can he possibly be visible next to the stars that are born about him.

You can imagine that when some of these new torch-makers claim we no longer need that lantern, that in fact it has led us astray, the madman will retort “if you deny my light, how can you possibly see? There are some things you will never see without my light to show that path. Where is the light that will replace mine?” Why must I follow the path you lay out when your light is so faint, when all that it has comes from the light of others, and that are lights have become bright enough that, all combined, we can see the same path as the madmen’s, plus so many more. And why only have this one lantern for those paths when so many other torches have been lit?

Now the madmen are running, nay, chasing these new lights, and they are loosing their step. Perhaps some will drop those lanterns and they will find that the there was no change at all. What is true is that many of these lanterns have been broken; they cover the ground, leaving their shattered shards to harm those that walk through, especially when the madman picks up these broken lamps and acts as the messenger again, believing all is good even when he bleeds.

One day, there shall be enough be torches to see the corpses made by these lanterns, the broken idols that they always were, and they fill be cleared from the ground. But today, we must be careful, for we still are deep in the cave as still know not what we do with these bodies; the shards remain to continue the cause death by those unfortunate to come too close. With enough of these torches, one day we can become children of light, and when we look into the old reflectors, we will see ourselves and know that was have become the light, the gods preached before, that we now poses the good, the true, the spiritual. Instead of searching, we can produce our own Pleroma, our own seventh heaven, but it will require as many lights as there are stars. Our magnified gazes show us billions upon billions are to be needed, which leads us to the final question:

Do you have a match?

For reference, one should be well-read in their Plato, Voltaire, Nietzsche, and modern secular writers to best understand the above.