Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Q1 2010, VOLUME 8, NUMBER 1
QUARTERLY NEWSLETTER OF THE METROPLEX ATHEISTS
TFC 2010 COMING TO DFW
T he third Texas Free-thought Convention (TFC) will be held in the DFW Metroplex
in the Fall of 2010. Previous conventions were
held in Austin in 2008 and in San Antonio in 2009. Atten-dance more than doubled in the second year to over 200. This seems to indicate that Bible Belt Texas may be participating in the growing number of nonthe-ists that are coming out all over the U. S. and worldwide. If this continues the DFW convention could host around 500 nonthe-ists making it the largest re-gional convention in the U. S. for non-believers. Not bad for the ―Bible Belt.‖
The 2009 convention fea-tured speakers (left to right in the picture), Claire Wuellner, Center for Inquiry, Dan Barker, Co-President Freedom From Religion Foundation, Dr. Victor Stenger, physicist and author, Stuart Beckman, President of Atheist Alliance International, and Kathleen Johnson, Vice President of American Atheists. All participated in a Q & A panel towards the end of the conven-tion.
The Dallas Fort Worth Coali-tion of Reason (DFWCoR) booth was manned by volunteers who passed out member group‘s lit-erature and answered questions about the Coalition. They also took donations for Camp Quest and sold Camp Quest T-shirts
and tote bags made by DFWCoR volunteers from ―Don‘t Believe in God‖ billboard vinyl used in the 2009 DFW billboard ads. Profits from tote bag sales will be used to place signs on buses in Dallas and Fort Worth in the spring of 2010 using a ―Good Without God‖ theme.
The $25 convention registra-tion fee included admission, beer, wine, other beverages and snacks. Entertainment was pro-vided by volunteer atheist musi-cal duo Safety Limitless and a mariachi band as well as Dan Barker performing some of his original atheist music. Of course we cannot forget the partying that went down at the hotel both before and after the
(TFC on page 6)
DFWCOR booth at 2009 TFC in San Antonio TFC Guest Speakers at the Q & A Session
2 Q1 2010
A n appointment with Ms. Freethinker‘s hair-dresser is not to be missed. She intends to
call the studio to confirm her ap-pointment, but she us running late. She rushes out the door to begin the hour and a half trek to see Thomas in his Arlington stu-dio – the back rooms at Down-town Coffee Haus. Seems odd that Ms. F did not receive the usual email from Thomas to con-firm her appointment. When she arrives at the Down-town Coffee Haus, Ms. F de-cides to enter the studio via the back door, but it is locked. Un-usual, but oh well, she will enter through the front door. She is already late, what could another two minutes hurt? Thomas knows that Ms. F is the on-time sort. She is certain he will for-give her this one-time transgres-sion. The greeting bells chime as Ms. F enters the front door. The pa-trons sip espresso, tap on lap-tops, and manipulate I-phone apps whilst XM Channel 51 (The Coffee House) plays in the back-ground. Thomas Jr., who man-ages his father‘s Coffee Haus, is not behind the front counter. How odd. She walks back to the studio. Thomas is nowhere in sight. Oh wait! Did Thomas al-ready move down the street to the historic Vandergriff building? No…no, she is certain that Tho-mas told her last month during a double process color session that the studio and Coffee Haus are to move together to their new digs in 2010. Relieved to know that she is not the only one
late around here, Ms. F walks to the front counter and asks the barista where the Thomasii are hiding. The woman hesitates then asks, "You want Senior or Junior?‖ ―Senior. He‘s not in his studio.‖ The look on the barista‘s face is grim. ―Oh, you don't know?‖ says she. ―Thomas Sr. passed away a couple of weeks ago. Thanksgiving Day. Heart at-tack. We tried to contact all his clients but…" Mercy! Ms. F was not expecting to hear that. Her brain proc-esses this news in slow motion. She is numb. She understands that her pal is gone and is will never again perform his artistry on her curly locks. She sits down at a small café table. How can this be? Tho-mas was only 53, not an ounce of fat on him. She looks around the room at the murals, jars of coffee beans, the teas, and the pastry display. Oh, she will miss Thomas and this place, the pa-trons, the steaming cups of ex-otic tea, and the chicken salad sandwiches. Ms. F sighs, rises from the chair, and leaves the shop. She walks back to her car and sits for a while to sort herself out. The next errand on Ms. F‘s list is to return some Land's End mail or-der clothes to Sears at The Parks mall. She drives to the mall. At the conclusion of the return
transaction, Ms. F asks the clerk where the public restroom is lo-cated in the store. ―Downstairs, in lawn & garden‖, says she. Ms. F thanks the clerk and heads toward Lawn & Garden. She enters the ladies restroom, selects a stall, locks the door, sits on the toilet, and sobs for a good 10 minutes. The tears are cleansing. She exits the stall and looks at her reflection in the bathroom mirror. A raccoon stares back at her. Can‘t walk through a shop-ping mall looking distraught. That attracts unwanted attention. She pulls herself together with soap, water, and toilet tissue. The puffy eyes will be with her for the remainder of the day. It‘s cloudy outside, but Ms. F puts on dark glasses to hide her eyes. The walk to her car is short. The seat is cold. She pulls down the visor and looks at herself in the mirror. Ms. F sees a shaggy dog. She wonders what to do about her hair. Ms. F is con-vinced that men are better hair-dressers than women whilst women are better doctors than men. She doubts there is any-one in G-town that she is willing to let touch her hair. Men are barbers in rural areas, not hair-dressers. And barbers are not artistes, nor to they have female clients. Ms. F is in no mood to complete her errand list today. She
(Bad Hair on page 5)
A Freethinker’s Bad Hair Day
Metroplex Atheists Business Meeting Location
METROPLEX ATHEISTS MEETS AT 1:00 P.M. THE
MEETINGS ARE HELD ON THE THIRD SUNDAY OF
EACH MONTH.
THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED AT:
GRAPEVINE FIRE HALL
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HUGHES AND MERLOT AVE,
GRAPEVINE, TX
3 Q1 2010
Go to www.metroplexatheists.org
The Dallas/Fort Worth Coalition of Reason (DFWCoR.org) is a group of local organizations joined together to increase the growth, visibility and acceptance of nontheists throughout the Metroplex.
While all of these organizations share common ground, each has its own particular emphasis and at-mosphere. Some are focused on scientific inquiry and education; others are focused on ethics and community. Still others seek to create environments of rationality where people can socialize in cli-mates of tolerance and support. All organizations are committed to promoting wider acceptance of a more rational and realistic view of the universe and the humans who live in it.
METROPLEX ATHEISTS
DALLAS-ATHEIST PLANO MEETUP
FREETHINKERS OF UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS—ARLINGTON
HUMANIST ASSOCIATION OF FORT WORTH
FELLOWSHIP OF FREETHOUGHT
FREETHINKERS OF FORT WORTH MEETUP GROUP
DALLAS BRIGHTS
NORTH TEXAS CHURCH OF FREETHOUGHT
CAMP QUEST
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS FREETHOUGHT ALLIANCE
ATHEISTS, SKEPTICS AND HUMANISTS AT UT DALLAS
NORTH TEXAS SKEPTICS
THE DENTON ATHEIST MEETUP GROUP
FREETHINKERS OF EAST TEXAS
METROPLEX
ATHEISTS
Officers
Terry McDonald – Chairman
Randy Word – Vice Chairman
John Hattan – Secretary
Colin Sewards – Treasurer
Board of Directors
John Hattan
Colin Sewards
James Hardwick
Richard „Dick‟ Hogan
Librarian
Terry McDonald
Editor
Randy Word
Membership Chair
Libba Murphey
Sergeant at Arms
John Hattan
AAI Representatives
Colin Sewards
Larry McHam
About
Metroplex Atheists is a 501(c)(3) non-
profit organized for the purpose of educa-
tion, maintaining Constitutional separation
of government and religion, protection of
atheists‟ rights and to provide social meet-
ings for those of similar worldviews. We
are affiliated with American Atheists,
Atheists Alliance International and the
Dallas Fort Worth Coalition of Reason.
4 Q1 2010
My wife is a big fan of perennials, those plants that don‘t have to be planted each year but come back year after year. I‘ve noticed over the years that some, for vari-ous reasons, don‘t make it to the second year and some struggle for several years. But if the plant is right for our area‘s soil and climate and gets enough water, they do well in the second year. And the third year…the third year…that‘s when they have built up their roots and can put up a display of growth that can make all the work, and the water bills, worth the effort.
I‘m beginning to think that human activity is more
―organic‖ than we realize. Years ago a friend from high school volunteered to
chair the ―Fall Festival‖, an outdoor event that raised money for the Catholic school our kids attended. When I wished him success he said that the festival was so well established that the only way it would fail is if it rained that weekend. Obviously it was well past it‘s ―third year‖.
It did my old heart good when Metroplex Atheists
members attendance at the 2009 Texas Freethought Con-vention (it‘s second year) increased at a much greater per-centage than the convention itself (it more than doubled to over 200). While those who attended in 2008 were pleased at the growth, some newcomers expressed disap-pointment because they were expecting a much larger group. I hope they‘re not disappointed in 2010.
It is my opinion that this ―third year‖ of the annual event
can be a year of breakout ―organic‖ success. The roots have been established, the convention will be in this area, an area with a large population and home to many active nontheists groups. I think these groups working together under the umbrella of the Dallas Fort Worth Coalition of Reason are capable of creating an event that can rival the impact of conventions of national nontheists groups. Imagine a large and active meeting that attracts the attention of local, and possibly national, television, newspapers and other media. A meeting that makes
(Chair on page 6)
5 Q1 2010
makes the hour and a half drive home. Back at the casa, Ms. F searches for Thomas in the Star-Telegram obituaries. She reads the guest book comments and finds that he was (gasp!) a Sunday school teacher at First Baptist Church in Arlington. The comments vary, but Ms. F senses a Christian theme going
on here. One client says that ―it was heavenly to get hair, es-presso, and prayer all in the same place.‖ Wow! Who k n e w ? T h o m a s never attempted to pray with Ms. F or witness the glory of his god. But then, the topic of relig-ion never came up. He kept his dogma to himself with her. S i g h ! S u c h a n i c e man. Friendly. Unassuming. Professional. A true artiste. Ms.
F misses him.
It is true that a woman‘s Ob-gyn and hairdresser are sacro-sanct. Makes Ms. F sound like a believer. How ironic is that? Rest in peace, my friend. Yours truly, Ms. Freethinker
(Bad Hair from page 2)
1. The Cosmological Argu-
ment
1. Everything that exists must have a cause.
2. The universe must have a cause (from 1).
3. Nothing can be the cause of itself.
4. The universe cannot be the cause of itself (from 3).
5. Something outside the universe must have caused the universe (from 2 & 4).
6. God is the only thing that is outside of the universe.
7. God caused the universe (from 5 & 6).
8. God exists.
FLAW 1: can be crudely put: Who caused God? The Cosmo-
logical Argument is a prime ex-ample of the Fallacy of Passing the Buck: invoking God to solve some problem, but then leaving unanswered that very same problem when applied to God himself. The proponent of the Cosmological Argument must admit a contradiction to either his first premise — and say that though God exists, he doesn't have a cause — or else a con-tradiction to his third premise — and say that God is self-caused. Either way, the theist is saying that his premises have at least one exception, but is not ex-plaining why God must be the unique exception, otherwise than asserting his unique mys-tery (the Fallacy of Using One Mystery To Pseudo-Explain An-other). Once you admit of ex-ceptions, you can ask why the universe itself, which is also unique, can't be the exception. The universe itself can either exist without a cause, or else
can be self-caused . Since the buck has to stop somewhere, why not with the universe?
FLAW 2: The notion of "cause" is by no means clear, but our best definition is a rela-tion that holds between events that are connected by physical laws. Knocking the vase off the table caused it to crash to the floor; smoking three packs a day caused his lung cancer. To ap-ply this concept to the universe itself is to misuse the concept of cause, extending it into a realm in which we have no idea how to use it. This line of skeptical rea-soning, based on the incoherent demands we make of the con-cept of cause, was developed by David Hume.
COMMENT: The Cosmologi-cal Argument, like the Argument from the Big Bang, and The Ar-gument from the Intelligibility of
(Arguments on page 7)
3 of 36 Arguments For God
"This article has been reprinted from the Huffington Post with permission from the author. Landon
Ross is a contributor to the Huffington Post, principal founder of www.RationalApe.com, and Los An-
geles based artist."
This is an ongoing series
6 Q1 2010
Corrupting Poppyseed Chicken
From Gay Hopton-Jones
2 lbs. chicken breasts, cooked and cut into bite sized pieces
8 oz. sour cream
1 can cream of mushroom soup
1 1/2 C. crushed butter cracker crumbs (use Pepperidge Farm Butterfly Crackers or Town House Crackers, I prefer the Pepperidge Farm but they are sometimes hard to find--ask for them)
1 stick unsalted butter, melted
2 T. poppyseeds
Combine sour cream and soup. Mix with chicken and place in casserole dish. Combine crumbs, melted butter, and poppyseeds. Sprinkle over top of chicken. Bake, un-covered at 325 for 45 minutes.
convention. Thanks in particular to Zach Moore for hosting a great post convention party.
Metroplex Atheists is looking forward to doing its part working with all DFWCoR member groups and the TFC Board of Directors to make the 2010 TFC event the best yet. To make this the largest and best convention so far we will need volunteers throughout the year, from plan-ning and organizing to help with the operations during the actual convention. We are open to any and all ideas no matter how far fetched they may seem. If you would like to be a volunteer or offer ideas please send an email to:
SEE YOU ALL AT THE CONVENTION
(TFC from page 1)
mainstream Christians sit up and take notice and angers a l a r m e d F u n d a m e n t a l -ists. ―What is this large group of non-believers doing meeting in our precious Bible Belt?‖
Perhaps I‘m too optimis-
tic. Maybe we‘ll just have an ordinary get together where we hear some first-rate speakers and have a good time visiting and making new friends with other rational people.
That would be fine but I want
more. I want the 2010 Texas Freethought Convention to be so successful it becomes estab-lished as an event that is as im-mune to failure as the ―festival‖ in the above example, only vul-nerable to the weather.
To that end I‘m asking for help from Metroplex Atheists
(Corner from page 4)
members, Dallas Fort Worth Coalition of Reason members and any others who share my view of the tremendous impact we can make for positive good with a very successful meeting of atheists, agnostics, human-ists, freethinkers, skeptics and whatever else we call our-selves. We need volunteers now and throughout the year. Let‘s make it a banner year!
Terry
Looking for speakers to discuss
Atheism?
To arrange a speaking engagement, please
email the Metroplex Atheist Director:
7 Q1 2010
the Universe, are expressions of our cosmic befuddlement at the question: why is there some-thing rather than nothing? The late phi losopher Sydney Morgenbesser had a classic re-sponse to this question: "And if there were nothing? You'd still be complaining!"
2. The Ontological Argu-
ment
1. Nothing greater than God can be conceived (this is stipu-lated as part of the definition of "God").
2. It is greater to exist than not to exist.
3 . If we conceive of God as not existing, then we can con-ceive of something greater than God (from 2).
4. To conceive of God as not existing is not to conceive of God (from 1 and 3).
5. It is inconceivable that God not exist (from 4).
6. God exists.
This argument, first articu-lated by Saint Anselm (1033-1109), the Archbishop of Can-terbury, is unlike any other, pro-ceeding purely on the concep-tual level. Everyone agrees that the mere existence of a concept does not entail that there are examples of that concept; after all, we can know what a unicorn is and at the same time say "unicorns don't exist." The claim of the Ontological Argument is that the concept of God is the one exception to this rule. The very concept of God, when de-fined correctly, entails that there is something that satisfies that concept. Although most people suspect that there is something
wrong with this argument, it's not so easy to figure out what it is.
FLAW: It was Immanuel Kant who pinpointed the fallacy in the Ontological Argument: it is to treat "existence" as a prop-erty, like "being fat" or "having ten fingers." The Ontological Argument relies on a bit of word-play, assuming that "existence" is just another property, but logi-cally it is completely different. If you really could treat "existence" as just part of the definition of the concept of God, then you could just as easily build it into the definition of any other con-cept. We could, with the wave of our verbal magic wand, define a trunicorn as "a horse that (a) has a single horn on its head, and (b) exists." So if you think about a trunicorn, you're thinking about something that must, by definition, exist; therefore truni-corns exist. This is clearly ab-surd: we could use this line of reasoning to prove that any fig-ment of our imagination exists.
COMMENT: Once again, Sydney Morgenbesser had a pertinent remark, this one of-fered as an Ontological Argu-ment for God's Non-Existence: Existence is such a lousy thing, how could God go and do it?
3. The Argument from De-
sign
A. The Classical Teleologi-
cal Argument
1. Whenever there are things that cohere only because of a purpose or function (for ex-ample, all the complicated parts of a watch that allow it to keep time), we know that they had a designer who designed them with the function in mind; they are too improbable to have
arisen by random physical proc-esses. (A hurricane blowing through a hardware store could not assemble a watch.)
2. Organs of living things, such as the eye and the heart, cohere only because they have a function (for example, the eye has a cornea, lens, retina, iris, eyelids, and so on, which are found in the same organ only because together they make it possible for the animal to see.)
3. These organs must have a designer who designed them with their function in mind: just as a watch implies a watch-maker, an eye implies an eye-maker (from 1 & 2).
4. These things have not had a human designer.
5. Therefore, these things must have had a non-human designer (from 3 & 4).
6. God is the non-human designer (from 5).
7. God exists.
FLAW: Darwin showed how the process of replication could give rise to the illusion of design without the foresight of an actual designer. Replicators make cop-ies of themselves, which make copies of themselves, and so on, giving rise to an exponential number of descendants. In any finite environment the replicators must compete for the energy and materials necessary for rep-lication. Since no copying proc-ess is perfect, errors will eventu-ally crop up, and any error that causes a replicator to reproduce more efficiently than its competi-tors will result in that line of rep-licators predominating in the population. After many genera-tions, the dominant replicators will appear to have been de-
(Arguments from page 5)
(Arguments on page 10)
Atheis ts are Coming to a Restaurant Near You
Since you can‟t come to a Metroplex Atheist event, why not have Metroplex Atheist events come to you?
We now have a Metroplex Atheists Meet–up Group on www.meetup.com. Over the years we‟ve had many folks lament
that they couldn‟t come to a MA social event because of time/location of our normal Wednesday get together.
Why not start one of your own?
If you have a good meeting place and you‟re willing to show up to be
somewhat of a host, then just contact Metroplex Atheists and we can put an
announcement out on the web.
All it takes is for you to say, “Hey, why don‟t we meet at X?” and show up!
We‟d like to have a number of social groups that meet informally (because,
let‟s face it, the business meetings are only just so much fun). The real fun lies
in meeting other like minded people.
Where do YOU want to meet up?
.
Business Meeting
REGULAR MONTHLY MEETING: What: Meeting to decide general business of the group and to
discuss current events
Date: Third Sunday of the month
Time: 1:00 PM – 3:00 PM
Place: Grapevine Fire Hall, Hughes and Merlot, Grapevine, Tx
Social Meetings
DALLAS / PLANO ATHEIST MEETUP DAY: What: Meet with other local Atheists to talk about your beliefs
Date: Every Tuesday
Time: 7:00 PM
Place: TBA; For locations near you visit: atheists.meetup.com
MA ATHEIST MEETUP: What: „My dinner with Atheists,‟ social time with a bunch of
heathens
Date: 2nd, 3rd, 4th, (& 5th) Wednesday
Time: 6:00 PM – 9:00 PM
Place: J. Gilligan‟s Bar & Grill (Meet on the grill side)
400 E. Abram Street
Arlington, TX
MA ATHEIST MEETUP: What: „My dinner with Atheists,‟ social time with a bunch of
heathens
Date: 1st Wednesday of the Month
Time: 6:00 PM – 9:00 PM
Place: Blue Danube
2230 West Park Row
Pantego, TX
INFIDEL’S BASH - WINTER SOLSTICE PARTY
What: Join us for a fun and food with fellow atheists.
- Continue checking our website for Date, Time and Place
www.metroplexatheists.org
To have your events listed email:
The Atheist Voice Editor at
8 Q1 2010
Upcoming Events
THE ATHEIST VOICE is a quarterly publication of Metroplex Atheists.
For more information, please visit our website: www.metroplexatheists.org
To submit an article or letter to the editor, please email us.
The Atheist Voice Editor: [email protected]
9 Q1 2010
By David L. Hudson Jr. First Amendment scholar 01.26.10
D isputes over the display of the Ten Commandments on public property
continue to percolate in the lower courts and create contro-versies in local communities.
A three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 in ACLU of Kentucky v. Grayson County on Jan. 15 that a Ten Commandments dis-play in a Kentucky county court-house did not violate the estab-lishment clause — the part of the First Amendment that blocks government from endorsing or promoting religion.
The differences between the majority and the dissenting judge highlight competing vi-sions of the first 10 words of the First Amendment — "Ten Tor-tured Words," as author Stephen Mansfield has called them in a book title.
In deciding that the Kentucky display had no religious pur-pous, the 6th Circuit majority focused on the fact that the Ten Commandments were not dis-played in isolation but in con-
junction with nine other historical documents, including the May-flower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta and others. The majority also said the so -cal led ―Foundations Display‖ was on the second floor of the county cour thouse , where was ―relatively little foot traffic.‖
Dissenting Judge Karen Nel-son Moore blasted her col-leagues‘ decision as ―misguided at best.‖ She said county offi-cials had a clear religious pur-pose in displaying the Ten Com-mandments and that the inclu-sion of the other documents was merely subterfuge to mask that intent.
The differences among the jurists in the Grayson County case are also reflected on the U.S. Supreme Court. In June 2005, in the last days of the Rehnquist Court, the justices divided sharply over a pair of Ten Commandments cases, Van Orden v. Perry and McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky.
In Van Orden, the Court ruled 5-4 that a Ten Command-ments display that had stood in a Texas public park for 40 years did not violate the establishment clause. In McCreary County, the Court ruled 5-4 that much newer
displays in two Kentucky county courthouses — originally featur-ing the Ten Commandments in isolation, then later including other documents — did violate the establishment clause.
In both decisions Justice Stephen Breyer voted with the majority, making him the ulti-mate swing vote on this issue.
Much speculation is afoot over how the current Court headed by Chief Justice G. Rob-erts Jr. would rule in a similar case. Justice Samuel Alito Jr. has replaced Justice Sandra Day O‘Connor, who voted to in-validate the Ten Command-ments displays in both Van Or-den and McCreary County. Alito could vote with Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Cla-rence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy to form a group of five justices who might recalibrate the meaning of the establish-ment clause.
If public-interest law firms keep litigating and appealing Ten Commandments cases, and lower court judges keep issuing deeply divided opinions such as the 6th Circuit did in Grayson County, the high court might take another case involving the Decalogue to try to resolve the disagreements.
Courts Deeply Split on Ten Commandments Displays
“Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false and by the rulers of the world as
useful” - Seneca the Younger (3BCE-CE65)
10 Q1 2010
signed for effective replication, whereas all they have done is accumulate the copying errors which in the past did lead to ef-fective replication. The fallacy in the argument, then is Premise 1 (and as a consequence, Prem-ise 3, which depends on it): parts of a complex object serv-ing a complex function do not, in fact, require a designer.
In the twenty-first century, creationists have tried to revive the Teleological Argument in three forms:
B. The Argument from Irre-
ducible Complexity
1. Evolution has no fore-sight, and every incremental step must be an improvement over the preceding one, allowing the organism to survive and re-produce better than its competi-tors.
2. In many complex organs, the removal or modification of any part would destroy the func-tional whole. Examples are, the lens and retina of the eye, the molecular components of blood clotting, and the molecular mo-tor powering the cell's flagellum. Call these organs "irreducibly complex."
3. These organs could not have been useful to the organ-isms that possessed them in any simpler forms (from 2).
4. The Theory of Natural Se-lection cannot explain these irre-ducibly complex systems (from 1 & 3).
5. Natural selection is the only way out of the conclusions of the Classical Teleological Ar-gument.
6. God exists (from 4 & 5 and the Classical Teleological Argument).
This argument has been around since the time of Charles Darwin, and his replies to it still hold.
FLAW 1: For many organs, Premise 2 is false. An eye with-out a lens can still see, just not as well as an eye with a lens.
FLAW 2: For many other organs, removal of a part, or other alterations, may render it useless for its current function, but the organ could have been useful to the organism for some other function. Insect wings, be-fore they were large enough to be effective for flight, were used as heat-exchange panels. This is also true for most of the mo-lecular mechanisms, such as the flagellum motor, invoked in the modern version of the Argu-ment from Irreducible Complex-ity.
FLAW 3: (The Fallacy of Arguing from Ignorance): There may be biological systems for which we don't yet know how they may have been useful in simpler versions. But there are obviously many things we don't yet understand in molecular biol-ogy, and given the huge suc-cess that biologists have achieved in explaining so many examples of incremental evolu-tion in other biological systems, it is more reasonable to infer that these gaps will eventually be filled by the day-to-day pro-gress of biology than to invoke a supernatural designer just to explain these temporary puz-zles.
COMMENT: This last flaw can be seen as one particular instance of the more general
and fallacious Argument from
Ignorance:
1.There are things that we cannot explain yet.
2. Those things must be caused by God.
FLAW: Premise 1 is obvi-ously true. If there weren't things that we could not explain yet, then science would be com-plete, laboratories and observa-tories would unplug their com-puters and convert to condo-miniums, and all departments of science would be converted to departments in the History of Science. Science is only in busi-ness because there are things we have not explained yet. So we cannot infer from the exis-tence of genuine, ongoing sci-ence that there must be a God.
C. The Argument from the
Paucity of Benign Mutations
1. Evolution is powered by random mutations and natural selection.
2. Organisms are complex, improbable systems, and by the laws of probability any change is astronomically more likely to be for the worse than for the better.
3. The majority of mutations would be deadly for the organ-ism (from 2).
4. The amount of time it would take for all the benign mu-tations needed for the assembly of an organ to appear by chance is preposterously long (from 3).
5. In order for evolution to work, something outside of evo-lution had to bias the process of mutation, increasing the number of benign ones (from 4).
(Arguments from page 7)
(Arguments on page 11)
11 Q1 2010
6. Something outside of the mechanism of biological change — the Prime Mutator — must bias the process of mutations for evolution to work (from 5).
7. The only entity that is both powerful enough and purposeful enough to be the Prime Mutator is God.
8 .God exists.
FLAW: Evolution does not require infinitesimally improb-able mutations, such as a fully formed eye appearing out of the blue in a single generation, be-cause (a) mutations can have small effects (tissue that is slightly more transparent, or cells that are slightly more sensitive to light), and muta-tions contributing to these effects can accumulate over time; (b) for any sexually reproducing organism, the necessary mutations do not have to have occurred one after the other in a single line of descendants, but could have appeared inde-pendently in thousands of separate organisms, each mutating at random, and the necessary combinations could come together as the organisms mate and ex-change genes; (c) life on earth has had a vast amount of time to accumulate the necessary mutations (almost four billion years).
D. The New Argument
from The Original Replicator
1. Evolution is the process by which an organism evolves from simpler ancestors.
2. Evolution by itself cannot explain how the original ances-
tor — the first living thing — came into existence (from 1).
3. The theory of natural se-lection can deal with this prob-lem only by saying the first living thing evolved out of non-living matter (from 2).
4. That non-living matter (call it the Original Replicator) must be capable of (i) self-replication (ii) generating a func-tioning mechanism out of sur-rounding matter to protect itself against falling apart, and (iii) surviving slight mutations to it-self that will then result in slightly different replicators.
5. The Original Replicator is complex (from 4).
6. The Original Replicator is too complex to have arisen from purely physical processes (from 5 & the Classical Teleological Argument). For example, DNA, which currently carries the repli-cated design of organisms, can-not be the Original Replicator, because DNA molecules re-quires a complex system of pro-teins to remain stable and to replicate, and could not have arisen from natural processes before complex life existed.
7. Natural selection cannot explain the complexity of the Original Replicator (from 3 & 6).
8. The Original Replicator must have been created rather than have evolved (from 7 and the Classical Teleological Argu-ment).
9. Anything that was created requires a Creator.
10. God exists.
FLAW 1: Premise 6 states that a replicator, because of its complexity, cannot have arisen from natural processes, i.e. by way of natural selection. But the mathematician John von Neu-mann showed in the 1950s that it is theoretically possible for a
simple physical system to make exact copies of itself from surrounding materials. Since then, biologists and chemists have identified a number of naturally occur-ring molecules and crystals that can replicate in ways that could lead to natural selection (in particular, that allow random variations to be preserved in the copies). Once a molecule replicates, the process of natural se-lection can kick in, and the replicator can accumulate matter and become more
complex, eventually leading to precursors of the replication sys-tem used by living organisms today.
FLAW 2: Even without von Neumann's work (which not eve-ryone accepts as conclusive), to conclude the existence of God from our not yet knowing how to explain the Original Replicator is to rely on The Argument from Ignorance.
(Arguments from page 10)
This argument has been around since the time of Charles Darwin, and his replies to it still hold.
12 Q1 2010
January 29, 2010 |By Greta Christina
The notion that 'there are no atheists in foxholes' isn't just mis-taken, it's bigoted and ugly; a denial of atheists' humanity and the reality of our experience with death.
Sure, you deny God now. But when you're looking death in the face -- when you're sick or in an accident or staring down the barrel of a gun -- you'll change your mind. You'll beg for God then. There are no atheists in foxholes.
This is one of the most com-mon accusations that gets leveled against atheists. The idea seems to be that our atheism isn't sincere. It's naive at best, shallow at worst. We haven't really thought through what atheism means; it's somehow never occurred to us that atheism -- and its philosophical companion, natu-ralism -- means that death is for-ever. As soon as the harsh reality of what atheism means gets shoved in our faces, we'll drop it like a hot potato.
Now, the most common atheist response to this accusation is to point out that it's simply and flatly not true. And it's one of the argu-ments I'm going to make myself, right now. This accusation is simply and flatly not true.
If you go to an atheist blog or forum, and you make this accusa-tion, you'll be inundated with stories of atheists who have faced death: their own, and that of people they love. You'll hear stories of people who have been mugged, who have been in terrible accidents, who have faced life-threatening ill-nesses. You'll hear stories of peo-ple who have suffered the illness and death of dearly beloved friends
and family members. I'm one of those people.
And we didn't stop being athe-ists.
This is even true of people who face death professionally, on a regular basis. Contrary to the com-mon canard, there are, in fact, athe-ists in foxholes. There are atheist soldiers. Atheist police officers. Atheist firefighters. There are even entire organizations of them. (For a while, there was actually a group of military atheists with the waggish name, "Atheists In Foxholes.")
Atheist responses to death and imminent death vary, of course, what with us being human and all. Some of us feel a desire to return to religion, a wish that we could be-lieve in God and the afterlife and take comfort from that belief. Oth-ers are even more confirmed in our atheism than before: finding little comfort in the idea that death and tragedy were created deliberately by the hand of God, and finding great comfort in our humanist phi-losophies of life and death. But deathbed/foxhole conversions to religion are really pretty rare. (If you've heard stories about them, know that many of these stories are made up by religious believers to bolster their case.)
When you think about it, the whole argument is completely ab-surd. Do people really think that, out of the millions of atheists around the country and around the world, none of us have ever been deathly ill, or suffered the loss of someone we loved? Does that even make sense?
But let's move on. Let's pre-tend, for the sake of argument, that this accusation is true. Let's sup-pose that every single atheist who's
ever faced death has converted to religion.
How would that be an argument for religion being true?
If anything, it's the opposite. It's been clearly demonstrated that when we're strongly motivated to believe something, we're much more likely to believe it: we amplify the importance of evidence that seems to support this belief, filter out evidence that contradicts it, etc. When we really, really want to be-lieve something, that's when we have to be extra-cautious about concluding that it's true ... since the chances that we're just trying to talk ourselves into it have shot through the roof. The human mind's capac-ity to persuade itself of things it wants to believe is damn near limit-less.
And the desire to believe in immortality is the mother of all wish-ful thinking. Especially when we're immediately confronted by death.
So if atheists only converted to religion when they were on their deathbed ... that wouldn't be an argument for religion being a true and accurate perception of some-thing in the real world. That'd actu-ally be a strong argument for relig-ion just being something people made up to make themselves feel better.
OK. Those are the most com-mon, most obvious defenses against the "atheists in foxholes" accusation. But I want to add some-thing more -- something that often gets left out of the conversation about foxholes and deathbed con-versions.
(Religion on page 13)
Why Atheists Don't Turn to Religion When Faced with Death or Disaster
13 Q1 2010
I want to point out what an ugly argument this is.
What would you think if some-one made this argument to a per-son of a different faith? "Sure, you believe in Judaism now -- but when your plane is going down, you'll turn to your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."
Is that an appropriate thing to say? Or is it religious big-otry, pure and simple? Regard-less of what you personally believe about Jesus Christ and his ability to comfort people during plane crashes ... would you renounce this argument as insensitive and tone-deaf at best, callous and inhumane at worst?
So how it is any different to make this argument to atheists?
The "You'll change your tune when you're looking death in the face" trope has a Schadenfreude quality to it that is truly ugly. It takes a sadistic, "I told you so" glee in the potential suffering of others. It has an almost hopeful quality that's deeply unsettling. "Someday, you'll be sick and dying with a terrible
illness, or you'll be in a terrifying accident, or the person you love most in the world will be gone from your life forever ... and then I'll be proven right! Then you'll know the glory and majesty of the Lord! In your face!"
People will shamelessly and unhesitatingly say things about atheists they would cringe from saying about people of different religions. Many believers -- even progressive, ecumenical, "all relig-ions have some truth and are all worshiping God in their own way" believers -- will happily say that atheists are immoral, that atheists have no meaning or joy in our lives, that atheists are just being trendy or rebellious, that atheists have no right to express our views in the
public forum. And even the most zealous hard-core believers will usually approach diverse religious beliefs with more understanding and tolerance than they show to atheism. Atheism seems to unsettle many believers, to a degree that different religious beliefs generally
don't ... and those believers seem perfectly willing to take out that unsettled feeling on atheists.
The "no atheists in foxholes" trope is a classic example of this. It's not just a lie. It's not even just an ignorant, absurd, colossally stupid lie. It's a big-oted lie. It's a lie that denies our most basic humanity: the fact that atheists love life, that we're deeply attached to the people we love, and that we experience fear and grief in
the face of death. It's a lie that tries to depict us, as not just callow and naive, but as something less than human.
Please know that it's a lie.
And please don't tell it.
This article reprinted from alter-net.org (see also [email protected])
(Religion from page 12)
P e o p l e w i l l s h a m e l e s s l y a n d unhesitatingly say things about atheists they would cringe from saying about people of
different religions.
14 Q1 2010
Our Mission Statement: "To create a positive impact on our shared world, our mission is to provide a community that values and promotes a freethinking life unencumbered by the biases of tradition, dogma, and
authority and that encourages people to live a reason and evidence-based life characterized by close fellowship, ethical contemplation, critical thinking, community service, and the appreciation of scientific knowledge and understanding of the Universe and our place in it."
Who we are: We are an organization of freethinkers. We are a group of people who understand that our humanity is inextricably bound in yours. We are humanists, non-believers, secularists. We are families, friends, scientists, philosophers, educaters, peers, housewives, colleagues and your
neighbors. Many of us have shed lives in religion that many of our members have never known. We are outspoken, we are quiet. We are a growing number that choses to live life - in reason.
What we provide
A venue to connect with other freethinkers on a regular basis
An ethical community where members‘ personal missions and goals are supported
Access to mentoring and educational services for our children
A place for the acknoledgement, celebration, and reflection of life events
Lifelong learning opportunities for all, in science, critical thinking, ethical contemplation, and philosophical discourse
A platform for social outreach and volunteerism
About our logo:
About Us
Freethought • Fellowship • Friendship •Family
Four petals make up the Fellowship Panzy, representing the different facets of our organization. From the left (clockwise) we begin with Freethought. Atheist, Skeptic, Agnostic, Humanist,
non-theist, Bright, or yet unclassified non-believer, we all have the desire to live a life free of dogma.
At the top of our flower is what we think has been missing from many secular organizations and meet-ups to date – Fellowship.
It goes beyond socialization. It encompasses outreach, volunteerism, advancing shared goals and enriching the lives of our communities.
Although we don‘t always agree, as freethinkers tend to be opinionated, we think Friendship and
respecting each other as individuals, is important. We hope our gatherings allow for the fostering and development of meaningful relationships between people of like (and sometimes ―not so like‖) minds.
Our last petal is the representation of Family – defined by your own situation. We do not judge. We come together as a freethinking family, a family of families, with diverse cultures and unique backgrounds. In the center lies a unifying childlike representation of our future. It is owned by all and serves as a reminder that what we do has an impact on those that come after us. Together
this union of ideas creates our unique brand of fellowship.
Fellowship of Freethought is incorporated as a member based non-profit in the state of Texas and is
currently seeking 501(c)(3) status.
The newest member of the Dallas Fort Worth Coalition of Reason is the Fellowship of Freethought
15 Q1 2010
WHY DON'T HE LEND A HAND? By Samuel P. Putnam (1838-1896) You say there is a God Above the boundless sky, A wise and wondrous deity Whose strength none can defy. You say that he is seated Upon a throne most grand, Millions of angels at his beck . . . Why don‘t he lend a hand? See how the earth is groaning, What countless tears are shed, See how the plague stalks for-ward And brave and sweet lie dead. Homes burn and hearts are breaking,
Grim murder stains the land; You say he is omnipotent . . . Why don‘t he lend a hand? Behold, injustice conquers; Pain curses every hour; The good and true and beautiful Are trampled like the flower. You say he is our father, That what he wills doth stand; If he is thus almighty Why don‘t he lend a hand? What is this monarch doing Upon his golden throne, To right the wrong stupendous, Give joy instead of moan? With his resistless majesty, Each force at his command, Each law his own creation . . .
Why don‘t he lend a hand? Alas! I fear he‘s sleeping, Or is himself a dream, A bubble on thought‘s ocean, Our fancy‘s fading gleam. We look in vain to find him Upon his throne so grand, Then turn your vision earthward, ‗Tis we must lend a hand. ‗Tis we must grasp the lightning, And plow the rugged soil; ‗Tis we must beat back suffering, And plague and murder foil; ‗Tis we must build the paradise And bravely right the wrong; The god above us faileth, The god within is strong.
Why Don’t God Lend A Hand
Our Local Atheists in Foxholes:
WWII & Korea:
James Hardwick (Ret), Navy
Korea:
Chris Gregory, Air Force
Viet Nam:
Randall Gorman (Ret), Air National
Guard
Iraq:
Brian McIntosh (Ret), Marines
Shawn Ruzek, Marines
Deanne Dice
Antoyne E. Davis, Army
To the ‘Atheists in foxholes’
proudly serving the United States:
Thank you for your
unselfish sacrifice so
that we may all live in a
safer world.
w w w . a t h e i s t f o x h o l e s . o r g
16 Q1 2010
WHY DO WE FIGHT?
„Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight
for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued
defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the
rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual
we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred
thousand who hug superstition to their breasts.‟ – Isaac Asimov, when asked why he fights religion with no hope for victory
