Atheist Blog Challenge.
This was a Friday the 13th challenge so I’m a bit late to the party. But as they say, better late than never. I was tapped by The Freethinker to participate in this meme which originated at nullifidian. At the heart of “the challenge to find out at least a little bit more about each other in the atheist blogging community” is a series of questions – each to be answered by individual bloggers. Below are the questions and my answers.
Q1. How would you define “atheism”?
Lack of belief in gods (weak/implicit/agnostic atheism), or the belief that gods don’t exist (strong/explicit/gnostic atheism).
Q2. Was your upbringing religious? If so, what tradition?
I was an atheist until I was eight. I thought God was just another TV character, particularly on Davey and Goliath, which I watched on the weekends. Then my mother started taking me and my sisters to church at which time I was told that God was someone in the sky that I was supposed to love, worship, obey, etc. I became a Christian and remained one for the next 20 years though as an adult I switched to United Methodism. I then had a period of doubting which I tried to squelch with more Bible reading, prayer and good old denial, but I had to finally admit that I no longer believed.
Q3. How would you describe “Intelligent Design”, using only one word?
Balderdash.
Q4. What scientific endeavour really excites you?
Stem-cell research. The potential to treat and eradicate disease and disability is astounding.
Q5. If you could change one thing about the “atheist community”, what would it be and why?
Tone down the somewhat dogmatic elements in it. I don’t want to see atheism going the way of theism with notions that one must think a certain way to be a “true” atheist.
Q6. If your child came up to you and said “I’m joining the clergy”, what would be your first response?
I don’t have any children and never will. But hypothetically if I had a child who said they were joining the clergy I’d ask them to at least consider the Unitarians. They’re quite tame as far as religions go.
Q7. What’s your favourite theistic argument, and how do you usually refute it?
That all morals come from God/the Bible, and therefore atheists cannot be moral. I tell them that morality existed before the Abrahamic god was dreamed up, they exist in cultures that have never heard of him, and they certainly exist in people who have heard of him but don’t believe in him. Furthermore there is ample evidence of immorality in the Bible, much of it directly ordered by the god people claim is the arbiter of morality.
Q8. What’s your most “controversial” (as far as general attitudes amongst other atheists goes) viewpoint?
That atheists can be spiritual. Some atheists reject any notion of spirituality because it suggests belief in spirits. But others, like myself, consider the deep sense of awe/joy we feel at certain times spiritual.
Q9. Of the “Four Horsemen” (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris) who is your favourite, and why?
Daniel Dennett. Some of his specialties are interests of mine, such as philosophy of mind and cognitive science. He also brilliantly demonstrates in this quote why faith should not be placed on a pedestal the way it is by some individuals and societies:
[I]f you want to *reason* about faith, and offer a reasoned (and reason-responsive) defense of faith as an extra category of belief worthy of special consideration, I’m eager to [participate]. I certainly grant the existence of the phenomenom of faith; what I want to see is a reasoned ground for taking faith as a *way of getting to the truth*, and not, say, just as a way people comfort themselves and each other (a worthy function that I do take seriously). But you must not expect me to go along with your defense of faith as a path to truth if at any point you appeal to the very dispensation you are supposedly trying to justify. Before you appeal to faith when reason has you backed into a corner, think about whether you really want to abandon reason when reason is on your side. You are sightseeing with a loved one in a foreign land, and your loved one is brutally murdered in front of your eyes. At the trial it turns out that in this land friends of the accused may be called as witnesses for the defense, testifying about their faith in his innocence. You watch the parade of his moist-eyed friends, obviously sincere, proudly proclaiming their undying faith in the innocence of the man you saw commit the terrible deed. The judge listens intently and respectfully, obviously more moved by this outpouring than by all the evidence presented by the prosecution. Is this not a nightmare? Would you be willing to live in such a land? Or would you be willing to be operated on by a surgeon you tells you that whenever a little voice in him tells him to disregard his medical training, he listens to the little voice? I know it passes in polite company to let people have it both ways, and under most circumstances I wholeheartedly cooperate with this benign agreement. But we’re seriously trying to get at the truth here, and if you think that this common but unspoken understanding about faith is anything better than socially useful obfuscation to avoid mutual embarrassment and loss of face, you have either seen much more deeply into the issue that any philosopher ever has (for none has ever come up with a good defense of this) or you are kidding yourself. Darwin’s Dangerous Idea
Q10. If you could convince just one theistic person to abandon their beliefs, who would it be?
I honestly have no desire to de-convert anybody. I detest proselytizing so I wouldn’t do it to another person, even if it would have great potential benefit to others or myself.
I’m now tapping the following atheist blogs to carry the meme:
1.Anal Iced Bible
2.Deep Thoughts
3.Atheist Revolution
