dwnomad

A few weeks ago while I was on Chariots of Iron as guest host, Eli got me to agree to go to the Northwest Freethought Regional Conference. Getting to hang out with godless heathens all weekend in beautiful Portland, OR? Sounds like quite the deal.

I registered today. If you do so now it’s only $115 for the whole weekend with meals included. For $70 you can register for Saturday only and no meals. Tomorrow the rates go up a little bit.

If getting to hang out with me in Portland isn’t enough to convince you, P.Z. Myers will be the key note speaker.

If you live in the Northwest, sign up now!

Christianity makes many claims that are beyond the realm of any kind of verification, either scientific or logical. For example, life after death and the existence of supernatural beings are both conveniently beyond the scope of scientific investigation. The existence of an immaterial soul also currently falls in that category, but neuroscience is getting very close to answering that one. There are, however, a few claims that can be falsified.

Today we will be looking at epistemology. Much of the liberal side of Christianity has adopted a philosophy of non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA), and are immune to some of the epistemological issues since they will adjust any falsified beliefs once science provides a better explanation. It’ll be interesting to see if they adjust their stance on the soul once neuroscience rules it out. Conservative Christianity (Fundamentalist, Evangelical, SDA, etc) rejects NOMA and ranks faith and theology above science and history in their epistemological hierarchy.

Inerrantists and other Biblical literalists will claim that at the least the Bible is substantively true. Some will even acknowledge that contradictions and some scientific errors (such as earth at the center of the universe) are due to minor errors in a few details. They do, however, still hold that the entirety of the message from creation to the apocalypse is true.

This is a very weak epistemology for a couple of reasons:

First of all, new scientific data is only accepted if it conforms to theological presuppositions. Not only does this restrict the advancement of knowledge, it also results in otherwise capable scientists looking to the presuppositions of an ancient text instead of the evidence to form their hypotheses. This wouldn’t be so bad if the presupposition was rejected once the hypothesis failed, but instead they dismiss whatever evidence doesn’t fit with the presupposition.

The other epistemological failure of this model is that there is no evidence for its epistemological authority. Pastors and theologians say the Bible is the ultimate source of knowledge available on this earth, but they aren’t a sufficient authority on all knowledge. If you try to find any evidence other than people just spouting off their presuppositions, all you will find is internal biblical texts that claim biblical authority, most notably 2 Timothy 3:16:

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness…

If this was an appeal to authority it could be represented as, “A is true because B says so.” Which, is the committed by those who accept the word of pastors and theologians about it. However, for those “experts,” the support for biblical authority is, “A is true because A says so.”

To accept something as true on its own testimony, is nothing short of absurd.

(Note: Bonus points for anyone who catches the double entendre in the third paragraph. (Note for the note: not all double entendres are dirty.))

(Via Jesus and Mo)

This is a pretty common line from believers. Heck, it was an objection that slowed down my apostasy.

Fortunately, recognizing our place in the universe does nothing to diminish meaning and purpose to life. I would actually say that living a life devoted to praising an egotistical dictator (who probably doesn’t exist) would be the life devoid of meaning.

For the non-believer, you can find meaning and purpose anywhere.

I saw this article on RichardDawkins.net about the Islamic homophobia in London:

Here’s a few portents from the East End that we have chosen to ignore. In May 2008, a 15 year old Muslim girl tells her teacher she thinks she might be gay, and the Muslim teacher in a state-funded comprehensive tells her “there are no gays round here” and she will “burn in hell” if she ever acts on it. (I know because she emailed me, suicidal and begging for help). In September 2008, a young gay man called Oliver Hemsley, is walking home from the gay pub the George and Dragon when a gang of young Muslims stabs him eight times, in the back, in the lungs, and in his spinal column. In January 2010, when the thug who did it is convicted, a gang of thirty Muslims storms the George and Dragon in revenge and violently attacks everybody there. All through, it was normal to see young men handing out leaflets outside the Whitechapel Ideas Store saying gays are “evil.” Most people accept them politely.

These are not isolated incidents. East London has seen the highest increase in homophobic attacks anywhere in Britain. Everybody knows why, and nobody wants to say it. It is because East London has the highest Muslim population in Britain, and we have allowed a fanatically intolerant attitude towards gay people to incubate there, in the name of “tolerance”. The most detailed opinion survey of British Muslims was carried out by Gallup, who correctly predicted the result of the last general election. In their extensive polling, they found literally no British Muslims who would say homosexuality is “morally acceptable.” Every one of the Muslims they polled objected to it. Even more worryingly, younger Muslims had more stridently anti-gay views than older Muslims. These attitudes have consequences – and they are worst of all for gay Muslims, who have to live a sham half-life of lies, or be shunned by their families.

I’m having trouble seeing how Islam is a religion of peace…

I got this message on Atheist Nexus:

Hi Dustin, I saw your post on SDA A [Probably referring to the Ex-Adventist and Seventh-day Atheists Group]. I have a friend who I’ve not known for long and she is a SDA.  I wondered if you might give me some more understanding about where she might be at…  Can I talk to her about my being an atheist?  What would her views of me be?  Is there any chance that she might be going along with it, but not believing?

Apparently I’ve fallen into the role of the atheist movement’s resident expert on the SDA church. You know what, I can live with that. Anyway, someone else who doesn’t have an Adventist background might find this useful. Ex-SDAs feel free to provide more insight in the comments.

I see that you’re in Australia. I’m not very familiar with the SDA church down under, but from what little I know I think it’s pretty well in line with the church in the US. It was one of the first countries that the SDA church spread to and Ellen G. White, the church’s prophetess, spent the 1890s living in Australia.

You’re friend is likely to fall into one of three categories:

1. A devout Adventist who whole heartedly believes the whole thing.
2. An apathetic Adventist who tows the party line, but doesn’t really think about it or care too much.
3. A cultural Adventist who doesn’t believe many of the theological or scientific positions of the church, but sticks with it for family and community reasons.

The best way to find out where your friend fits in this is to find out more of her story. If she personally converted to the church because she was convinced of its message (as opposed to because her parents or husband were), she would likely be very devout and fervent. To tell her you’re an atheist would open the door for her to spend the rest of your friendship trying to convert you.

If on the other hand she or her husband were raised in the church, it’s much more likely that she may be an apathetic or cultural Adventist. As a matter of fact, the more generations between her and the original convert the more likely it would be cultural (I was 5th generation). If this is the case, then she would probably be quite tolerant of your atheism.

Keep in mind that Adventists are a much smaller minority than atheists are and they are also typically staunch secularists, so you would have a few things in common. Differences in lifestyle and any discussions about evolution would most likely create more friction than her mere knowledge of the fact that you don’t believe in god.

As a reminder, Thursday is question day when I have one to answer. I haven’t gotten many of them, so ask away Zeus Dammit!

I’m working on a two or three part series, but I haven’t been able to get the first part quite ready. So today, think about what it takes to inoculate against the truth.

As a kid I would come home from my Adventist School and watch “Bill Nye the Science Guy” and “Star Trek: The Next Generation.” I must have seen the episode this clip is from many times:

A good five years watching Bill Nye and Star Trek. Both presenting critical thinking and reasoning in entertaining ways, both could have been effective at opening my eyes. Instead I would ignore the parts that didn’t fit with what I believed. I was getting it every week at church, every day at school, and every night from my parents. Enough dogma can close the mind to the way things really are.

Probably the most effective tool in this is the claim that anything that doesn’t support the Bible is the work of the devil. Bill Nye taught good science, but when it went against what’s in the Bible it was because he was deceived and tricked by the devil. Star Trek was very entertaining, but when they said something like the above, it was because the writer was tricked by the devil. That one tool can be so effective at blocking out a message.

I was a smart kid. I excelled in math and science classes, but I was effectively inoculated against the truth.

(Video via Atheist Media)

I have challenged a few college buddies who are now pastors and some of my theology professors to engage in some friendly debate here on the blog. Nobody took me up on the offer, so my hope of creating dialogue hasn’t been very well realized.

Eli, from the Chariots of Iron has offered to host a moderated debate over Skype, that would then be released on the podcast feed. I’ll even let you pick the topic. Any takers?

I’ll expand this to the supporters of H. Con. Res. 13, including Representative Mike Simpson. If you think “In God We Trust” is a good motto, let’s talk about it.

If you’ve left the SDA church and moved a few times, you’ll notice that the constant stream of Adventist magazines keep following you. This is because you never dropped your membership. They followed me through three address changes over almost two years, this even included “The Quiet Hour” addressed to “Pastor Dustin Williams.”

It’s pretty simple to do. Think back to what congregation holds your membership, this would be the church you were baptized in or the one where you most recently transfered your membership to. Which conference or union sends you their publications could help in narrowing it down. If you can find an email address for the pastor, secretary, or clerk you can do it via email, otherwise it’ll cost you a postage stamp. You can say something as simple as the letter I sent:

Dustin Williams [email protected]>
to    [email protected]
date    Sat, May 23, 2009 at 1:31 PM
subject    Removal of Membership
mailed-by    gmail.com
   
I would like to hereby resign my membership with the Seventh-day
Adventist Church and formally request that church publications stop
being sent to me.

Sincerely,

Dustin Williams[email protected]>

The message will be forwarded to the church clerk, they’ll stop the publications, then at the next business meeting they will vote to honor your request. After that you should get a letter in the mail from the pastor telling you that you are no longer a Seventh-day Adventist. I still have the letter, honestly I’m tempted to frame it.

If they resist, then you can always list off your grievous sins, which according to the church manual they are required to remove your membership for. Among the most popular are apostasy, sabbath breaking, drinking, smoking, promiscuity, etc. If you haven’t gotten past the apostasy, then you’re missing out. However, there’s no point in giving an old woman a heart attack, so you should just leave it to the fact that you have apostatized.

If the membership you need to drop is LDS, I’ve heard you need to talk to the local bishop. Catholics have stopped honoring requests for defection, so you would probably have to burn an effigy of the pope made out of “host” and post a video on YouTube, this might get their attention and prompt an excommunication. Other denominations vary as to whether membership is local or centralized and who would need to process the request. If you have any doubt, I’m sure the local administrative office (diocese/conference/etc) could probably route your letter to the correct place.

The worst you would have to face would be a short meeting with a pastor, elder, or deacon. If this is the case, make sure you maintain control of the conversation and be firm. If you show weakness, they will pounce. Fortunately most denominations wont put you through this.

If you haven’t done this yet, please do. The longer you’re on the books, the longer they can count your for statistics and lobbying. Don’t give them the benefit of being able to use you to inflate their numbers.

Good luck!

It’s a double header, courtesy of Jesus and Mo. What’s awesome is both go nicely with yesterday’s post.