Jim Wilson has a few questions:

Did God give us Free Will? No. There is no reason to think so because there is no evidence to suggest that God ever existed but the existence of free will is still in question. For all practical purposes, it seems that we have it and we must act as though it exists. On the other hand, it could be that all of our behaviors and thought processes are the result of chemical reactions that we have no way of controlling.

The existence of free will depends on the definition of the term. After all, we may have free will in the sense that we are free to make decisions ourselves but, at the same time, we may lack it in the sense that actual decision making process is dictated by immutable physical laws.

Many religious people use free will as an explanation for why the world is messy. They argue that God wants us to voluntarily choose Him. They say our failure to do this has introduced sin into the world along with tapeworms, hurricanes, and tornadoes. Of course, this argument flies in the fact of the claim that God is all-knowing, all-benevolent, and all-powerful. All-knowing assumes prescience and all-powerful assumes total control of everything that happens. If God has a plan, no human activity can effectively alter the plan.

If, however, God is lacking in the infinite knowledge depart, or the infinite powers department, then free will maybe a little more plausible. But that makes God a little less great which may be just fine for some believers. The Judeo-Christian then must ask, “What did God know and when did he know it?” Additionally, it gives rise to countless other questions, such as:

Did God not create Satan? Could God not destroy Satan at this very moment? Did God not knowingly allow Satan to introduce evil into the world? Did God not knowingly begin the chain of events that led to evil being introduced into the world? Could God not have removed evil from the world at any time if he wanted to? If so, wouldn’t that make God ultimately responsible for the existence of evil in the world? Did God know that the world would become such brutal and inhospitable place for humans as a result of Adam eating the fruit? Was this part of this God’s plan or the result of a miscalculation on God’s part? Did God intentionally set Adam and eve up for failure? Were Adam and Eve simply tools used by God to introduce sin into the world? Could God have tweaked Adam and Eve’s personalities such that they could have avoided the whole incident, but chose not to? Was the talking snake actually an agent of God’s will, or the result of some sort of error in his judgment? Why should Adam’s descendants be punished for Adam’s actions? Was it God’s intention that humans should be a permanently ignorant?

Some believers argue that the world we live in is far from the human ideal because this allows humans to be virtuous rather than acting as something akin to robots. This leads me to ask:

Was Adam’s fall necessary for humans to be virtuous? Were Adam and Eve capable of being virtuous before their fall? Given this, is it possible to be virtuous in Heaven? Is there free will or sin in heaven?

Other Christians argue that Satan, rather than God is ultimately responsible for the evil that exist in today’s world. That is too convenient.

There are ambiguities within the Judeo-Christian world-view and areas that are potentially problematic for believers. Different believers will have different answers for these questions but the Bible says, “Prove all things: hold fast that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

These are my thoughts on free will and my latest set of questions for the faithful.

Here’s a blog submission, from Jason Adelstein:

Regardless of what you think of his answers, scientist and author Jared Diamond poses some of the most interesting questions around. I often disagree with his answers, or find them incomplete, but he gets you to think about things that you might not otherwise think about, which is a virtue in its own right.

In this article:

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/13/jared_diamond_its_irrational_to_be_religious/

Diamond poses the question: why are religious supernatural beliefs highly pervasive, mutually incompatible, yet sharing in certain commonalities the world over?

Diamond’s answer seems to be that such irrational beliefs persist because they are overtly absurd enough and distinct enough that espousing them serves a reliable indicator of group loyalty, but they are also close enough to everyday experience to gratify human emotions.

Diamond’s on to something, but maybe missing something too.

We’ve spoken at length on this blog about how morality, while it is an indispensable component of human life, does not come from religion even for the most devout of religious believers. The Bible, for example, advocates a lot of horribly immoral things!

Moral questions are often difficult ones, and the knowledge of how to answer moral questions has been hard won by human civilization over thousands of years. Because it has built up gradually over generations, our individual moral knowledge is often in-explicit; we say that some things just “feel wrong” but can’t easily explain why.

Yet some things that seem morally horrendous to us now, like slavery, didn’t “feel wrong” to most people a few hundred years ago, or in the bronze age when The Bible was written. That’s powerful evidence that morality is a form of knowledge that can be improved over time, rather than something that’s hardwired into our genes or dictated once, infallibly, for all eternity.

The human mind is thirsty for explanations. one reason that people persist in irrational supernatural religious beliefs is to account for the moral knowledge that they have, but can’t explain otherwise. They may know what the right moral thing is, but can’t explain why it is the right moral thing other than by invoking an authoritative deity who they believe decrees it to be so. Never mind that a few hundred years ago, their religious predecessors were absolutely convinced that the same deity had quite the opposite opinion.

And at a personal level, religious believers may often know that doing the wrong moral thing will eventually catch up to a person and make their life worse. But they can’t explain how that will happen, other than by invoking some kind of deity who punishes sinners and rewards saints.

And sometimes, people also can’t muster the self control to do the things they know are right, unless they can convince themselves that a supernatural deity is always standing over them, watching and judging.

So, while morality doesn’t come from religion, our need to explain morality and muster the self discipline to abide by it can be a powerful force in perpetuating irrational religious beliefs. This has profound implications for atheists: we need to not only live moral lives ourselves, but improve our ability to explain moral truths and how to live by them to others in an objective, rational, non-supernatural way.

Please read Diamond’s article and then comment: Is there anything else you think Diamond missed about this question? What do you think of the conjecture that the need to explain our moral knowledge plays a role in the perpetuation of irrational religious beliefs?

This blog entry is about the Secular Coalition for Arizona. Please log onto the website at www.secularaz.org and read about the organization. While you’re at it sign up for the “Take Action!” email list located at the top of the column on the right.

Perhaps a little mood music while you read this entry is in order. The Arizona State Legislature begins operation on the 14th. Are you all ready for this? The last call for donations has just been sent out by the CAP (Center for Arizona Policy) as they gear up to impose their will on everyone in the state regardless of religious affiliation. There have been a few posts here about the CAP and a few mentions of the Secular Coalition for Arizona. Both organizations are mentioned in the left sidebar on this page and it’s worth reading over from time to time.

The Secular Coalition for Arizona is also gearing up for the legislation session. Many of the affiliates of the coalition met this weekend in Mesa to make plans for the coming year as we closed out our second year of operation. Last year we hired a full time lobbyist to support the members of the coalition and this year we’re adding a development director to further enhance the effort to keep and maintain the secular character of the state government. Present at the meeting was the entire board of directors along with representatives from Flagstaff Freethinkers, FFRF Valley of the Sun Chapter, FreeThought Arizona, Humanist Society of Greater Phoenix, Military Atheists Agnostics and Freethinkers, Phoenix Atheist Meetup Group, Prescott Freethinkers, Secular Student Alliance from Mesa Community College, Sedona/Verde Valley Secular Freethinkers, and Tucson Atheists along with a couple of Liaison Members at Large. In all there are 15 member organizations in the coalition, up from 10 last year. We are often joined in our efforts by other groups such as Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

The Secular Coalition for Arizona is starting to make its presence known and receiving press coverage. This year instead of being constantly on the defensive, we will be promoting at least two bills before the legislature. One is an Oregon-style “Death with dignity” bill and the other proposes to teach science based sex education in public schools. We will also work against many of the bills proposed by the CAP specifically, ones that blur the line between church and state and those that are based on dogma instead of science and reason.

The main issues that drive the Secular Coalition for Arizona are: Science-based Medicine, Secular Public Schools, Marriage Equality, End-of-life Choices, Religious Privilege in Tax Laws, Women’s Healthcare, Military, and Government Involvement in Religious Expression.

Please log onto the website at www.secularaz.org and read about the organization. While you’re at it sign up for the “Take Action!” email list located at the top of the column on the right.

This is a blog for and by Atheists, Skeptics, Humanists, and those that believe the best answers come from scientific inquiry.

This year, many of the Atheists are looking forward to another year of finding each other. Local and state organizations like Tucson Atheists, FreeThought Arizona, the Tucson Chapter of Recovery from Religion, and Secular Coalition for Arizona along with the national and international groups will continue to grow as closeted Atheists begin to realize that they are not alone. While it is not the mission of the organizations to create new Atheists, they stand ready to support and defend people who have mustered the courage to question the “common wisdom” of belief and have come to the conclusion that the answers to questions about our world and universe can’t be found in a church pew.

The Skeptics just came off of a big boost in credibility when the world didn’t end on the 21^st of December. Also, people are beginning to realize that we have just had the 332^nd consecutive month with and above average temperatures.  The last colder than average month was February 1985. A famous “climate skeptic” made headline news back in July when his study caused him to change his views. While Skeptics rail against UFOs, psychics, ghosts, Chupacabra, and Big Foot, their cause celibre is exposing the anti-vaccination movement headed up by notable celebrities. In 2012, news reporting turned on the anti-vaccine movement and reported the return of epidemics and death caused by their actions. As the cost of anti-vaccination efforts become more apparent, the celebrities pushing the effort will lose favor and sanity, as far as getting vaccinated, will return. Skepticism as a movement had its challenges this year but it was a symptom created by its rapid growth and will rise above petty disagreements and power plays to recapture its momentum during 2013.

Superstition and dogma will give way to more humanist concerns in 2013. More people will come to realize that there is no intelligent influence outside of time and space responsible for the current state of reality. Humanist derived answers and the fact that we’re living in a completely natural universe are what remain. This change to accept Humanism will continue to happen at a frustratingly slower pace than it should. The evidence and knowledge that leads us down this inevitable path has been overwhelming for decades, yet change has been too slow. Cosmologists and theoretical physicist doctors Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss have proposed well supported and argued hypotheses that God was not necessary in creating the universe and the sum total of the energy of the universe is exactly zero. These ideas are basic and if proven will reduce the “God of the gaps” to insignificance. Humanism will advance but not quickly enough.

Finally, science will find answers and create even more questions. It is as it has been for centuries and growth in science will continue to accelerate as the amount of knowledge and its availability increases. There will be an enormous number of answers and they will be better, more robust.

People will die but more people will be born. Famous celebrities will most certainly reach their end only to be replaced by new celebrities. Some of them will be deserving of our attention and some will not. The world will continue to warm and there will be natural and man-made disasters. Politics will remain contentious and fundamentalism will frame many of our discussions.

The title refers to an old joke…A skydiving instructor was reviewing procedures with his student just prior to his first jump. He reminded him how to deploy his main chute and then discussed how to activate the emergency chute, if necessary. The student asked what to do if both chutes failed. The instructor says, “If all else fails, clear your mind and say ‘Buddha, oh Buddha.’” So as it happens in old jokes and made up stories, the student was faced with the failure of all of his equipment at which time he clears his mind and says, “Buddha, oh Buddha.” Much to his amazement a couple of hands appear under him and begin lowering him safely to the ground. Happy and greatly relieved he says, “Thank God!” and the hands open immediately allowing him to perish as he hit the ground at terminal velocity.

I was a believer when I first heard this story. It was a bit uncomfortable to hear for a couple of reasons. First, it laid bare the idea that we are on our own during dire situations as it is very unlikely to be saved in a miraculous way by God. In all my life, I had never heard or read about a miraculous save such as the one depicted in the story and part of the humor was the how unlikely the situation really is. The second reason it was a bit uncomfortable was that it opened me up to the idea that if the other deities are looked upon by outsiders as ridiculous, how does the God of the Bible stack up?

Hearing that joke may have been my first experience with cognitive dissonance. It made me realize that there may be answers that I hadn’t considered before. Many current believers must have a similar feeling when they hear Mike Huckabee blame our most recent tragedy in Connecticut on the lack of prayer in public school. The difference of course is that he wasn’t telling a joke, at least not on purpose. It is a most “cringe worthy” statement and it’s amazing that he states his opinion with such confidence. Do you believe that saying a prayer before classes would have made the least bit of difference in that tragedy? But also buried within his statements is the underlying theme that there is no morality and no values in secular society. Dave Noise in Psychology Today also cites Huckabee’s comments in his article on Atheist discrimination. Somehow Atheists are to blame for everything bad that happens. Mike Huckabee and others forget that religion played no part in the Sandy Hook tragedy.

About that religious student skydiver, do you think it showed a lack of faith for him to put on a chute to begin with? Mike Huckabee may be a hero of the religious right and his professions, while silly to the unbeliever, may resonate with those who believe in Christianity but Atheists have their spokesmen too and many of them are comedians (on purpose). For example, Eddie Izzard got it right when he says, “If there was a God, don’t you think he would have flicked Hitler’s head off?” And just between you and me, don’t you think he might have made Adam Lanza’s four weapons inoperable?

FreeThought Arizona will be sponsoring a show by Sam Singleton the Atheist evangelist, at Laff’s Comedy Caffe. Brother Sam is always a good time. Sam Singleton is a character played by humorist Roger Scott Jackson.  He satirizes his own Pentecostal upbringing, and seamlessly combines all the trappings of the southern rural Holy-man with irreverent humor and strong story telling.

Part comedian, part story-teller, part performance artist, Sam has appeared at such events as the Texas Free Thought Convention, the American Atheist Convention and SkeptiCon. He has much to say about growing up amongst tongues-speaking, snake handling believers in the Ozarks, and about going from child preacher to Atheist evangelist.

December 16h, Laff’s Comedy Cafe
Doors 6:00 pm, Show 7:00
2900 Broadway, Blvd Tucson AZ

Tickets: $15.00, $10.00 for students
You can purchase your tickets by using PayPal to send the entry fee to our Treasurer at FreeThought Arizona (treasurer@freethoughtarizona.org)
Enter your email address used for your PayPal account in the From box and treasurer@freethoughtarizona.org in the “To” box
or
by sending to:
FreeThought Arizona
P O Box 40532
Tucson AZ 85717

FreeThought Arizona is a 501c3 charity, as such, we are not allowed to take a position on individual candidates but now the election is over. Mitt Romney is no longer a candidate and Barack Obama has been green lighted for another four years in office. Given the choice between the two from a Secularist’s point of view, neither candidate was ideal. Atheists including Agnostics and other FreeThinking Americans are famously independent and leading them is often compared to herding cats. Some say that it’s more like herding butterflies but one thing that we all agree on is that there should be a separation of the church and the state. We universally agree that laws and public policies should be based on science, empirical evidence, verifiable experiences, independent historical accounts, and sound logic—not religious dogma. Given that one concern, President Obama was clearly the better choice.

Here in Arizona, we need to do a better job of keeping church and state separate. We’ve allowed the Center for Arizona Policy to have way too much power in our legislature. With the election behind us, it is time now to begin to work to roll back the power of Cathi Herrod. Her 501c3 organization is in flagrant violation of IRS rules for non-profit charitable organizations and has been active in partisan politics since 1995. She brags about over 100 laws that she has supported that have been enacted into law. We didn’t vote for her but she in effect tells everyone in the state who they should marry. She has decided that gambling is wrong, not just for herself, but for everyone in the state. She’s been instrumental in siphoning off money from the public education system into private institutions that don’t answer to the citizenry and are able to accept and reject students based on arbitrary criteria. She has supported a law that delays divorces by instilling a waiting period and unfunded mandatory counseling which in some cases extends the time women must endure in abusive situations. One of the laws she pushed through made it more difficult for children to be adopted by those that would remove them from state care. However, her most egregious violation of human dignity was her part in killing the Anti-Bullying law. The bill was killed by her because it protected gay kids from bullying. Never mind that it also protected all other kids as well.

The country has rejected Mitt Romney, the homophobic bully. Perhaps it’s time we started rejecting our own homophobic lobbying organization and Cathi Herrod. The best way to make that happen is to support the Secular Coalition for Arizona. The Secular Coalition for Arizona operates on a total budget that is less than the yearly compensation of Cathi Herrod. It is legally organized as a lobbying organization and represents many liaised non-theistic organizations in Arizona. Go to their website (http://www.secularaz.org/) and sign up for Email notification and find out about some of the liaised organizations make up the coalition.

Jim Wilson lays down another post in what could be a very long series of clueless lawmakers:

It is amazing the disturbing things one can say and still be considered a viable political candidate in this country. Today’s case in point is Charles Fuqua, who is running for the State House of Representatives in Arkansas. He gained nationwide attention with his recent book God’s Law, which among other things proposes instituting the death Penalty for unruly children. He justifies this by appealing to the following passage from Deuteronomy:

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)

With the bible as his guide, Fuqua states:

“A child who disrespects his parents must be permanently removed from society in a way that gives an example to all other children of the importance of respect for parents. The death penalty for rebellious children is not something to be taken lightly.”

Glad to see he does not take killing children lightly (note: sarcasm). I wonder if he favors going with God’s prescribed method of stoning them to death. He goes on to acknowledge that:

“This passage (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) does not give parents blanket authority to kill their children. They must follow the proper procedure in order to have the death penalty executed against their children.”

Despite believing us humans to be depraved sinful beings, he nowhere acknowledges the possibility that there are in fact parents in this country who would abuse the power to have their kids legally executed. The notion that kids should be made to behave by subjecting them to constant fear is horrendously cruel, primitive, and insane. It would literally turn family life into a totalitarian police state and cause endless psychological damage to the children.

It’s time to admit that the Bible is not a good source of law or morality and has some truly horrible ideas in it. Human morality has advanced far beyond the murderous tribalism of the Bible. We no longer stone people to death for working on the Sabbath or being rebellious. Keep in mind, rebelliousness is often a good thing. It is a sign that your kid can think for himself or herself. Stubbornness can also be a sign of being strong willed which can also be a good thing. These are not traits that people should be killed for possessing.

In their wisdom, the founding fathers of this country created a legal system that was not based on the Bible but instead based on protecting personal freedom. They rejected cruel or excessive punishments for trivial crimes which is exactly what Fuqua prescribes. The founders also promoted freedom of religion which Fuqua also explicitly rejects. He proposes expelling all Muslims from the country and forcing all elected representatives of this country to swear and oath of adherence to biblical infallibility. While I find Islam to be one of the most dangerous and deeply flawed belief systems in existence, I still stand in support for the freedom to believe it so long as they are not infringing on the rights of others. The notion of biblical infallibility is utterly insane. Any book that recommends stoning children to death for being rebellious is clearly very fallible.

It’s disturbing that a position as radical and outright insane as Mr. Fuqua’s can be called conservative in today’s political climate. There is nothing conservative about it. It is completely at odds with the vision of this country’s founders as well as even the most basic human decency.

Former Republican legislator Charlie Fuqua is running for legislature with financial support from the Arkansas Republican Party.

Here is another incredulous entry from Jim Wilson:

Americans display disinterest, distrust, or illiteracy when it comes to science. They enjoy their smart phones and the other toys and conveniences science produces, but few delve further than that. Many felt a sense of nationalistic pride with the landing of the Curiosity rover on Mars in August but these moments seem all too infrequent. On a given day, there is more interest in sports or celebrities than scientific issues. Too many in this country reject scientific thinking in favor of new age superstition or ancient religious nonsense.

Today’s case in point is US House Rep. Paul Broun from Georgia; he recently told an audience at Liberty Baptist Church that:

 God’s word is true. I’ve come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell. And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior. You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I’ve found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don’t believe that the Earth’s but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says. And what I’ve come to learn is that it’s the manufacturer’s handbook, is what I call it. It teaches us how to run our lives individually, how to run our families, how to run our churches. But it teaches us how to run all of public policy and everything in society. And that’s the reason as your congressman I hold the Holy Bible as being the major directions to me of how I vote in Washington, D.C., and I’ll continue to do that.

In other words, we have a superstitious, religious zealot in our government who rejects all scientific findings that contradict his favorite story book. The theories he rejects as being conspiracies from Satan himself are the cornerstones of our understanding of the universe. Evolutionary biology, old Earth geology, and the big bang cosmology are consistent with all existing evidence and are contradicted by none of it. The universe we live in makes no sense without these theories. Scientific literacy requires knowledge of these theories. Representative Broun rejects them in favor of willful ignorance.

Can you believe that this superstitious ignoramus is on the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space and Technology which has jurisdiction over NASA, the Department of Energy, EPA, ATSDR, NSF, FAA, NOAA, National Institute of Standards and Technology, FEMA, the U.S. Fire Administration, and United States Geological Survey as well as over federally funded scientific research and development that is not military-related? He shares this position with Todd “legitimate rape” Akin, who recently made news because of his incorrect belief that pregnancies are not likely to result from rape. There is certainly disagreement, among freethinkers about what role government should have in the sciences, but nearly all will agree that if we are to have a science committee the last people on it should scientific illiterates like Broun and Akin.

There are quite a few problems with Broun’s claims that the Bible is a good source of information on how to run society or a family. It is silent on many important issues like Nuclear proliferation, space travel, vaccinations, fossil fuel usage, and television to name a few. The New Testament’s main political instruction is to be obedient to earthly authorities: The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves (Romans 13:1). The Bible’s instructions on family life are completely insane. For example, it prescribes killing rebellious young people as well as family members who suggest you join other religions. Jesus himself was surprisingly anti-family when he said: If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters–yes, even his own life–he cannot be my disciple.(Luke 14:26)

Unfortunately, as of the time of writing Representative Broun is running unopposed. We need to free our government from the influence of superstitious crackpots and scientific illiterates who cling to Bronze Age mythology. Science has endless potential for improving our lives and our understanding of the universe we live in. We need law makers who understand this, rather than ones who want to base policy on primitive stories and outdated belief systems.

Last night, a small subset of the Tucson Atheists met in the Fronimos restaurant. Tucson Atheists hosts quite a few meetups. We have a diverse membership and it makes perfect sense to have many different kinds of meetings. Last night’s meeting is called, “Caffeinated Godlessly.” It is held every other Thursday and the current venue is Fronimos, a Greek restaurant, where the food is good, reasonably priced, and they have a nice area for discussion.

The subject of the meeting was, “Should Atheists be organizing politically?” The organizer is Nancy and she kicked off the discussion. Apparently, there is a new political party called the National Atheist Party. Nancy wanted to find out from those attending if it is a good idea to have an Atheist political party. Gregg, an occasional contributor to this blog, has been checking into it and was familiar with the organization. Most of us at the meeting were not very familiar with the specifics which is why the question was posed to be more general than, “What do you think of the National Atheist Party?”

After the requisite discussions about the meaning of Atheism, a frequently debated question in our group, we started kicking around the positive and negatives of organizing Atheists politically. There were some fundamental discussions such as:

• Would you vote for a poorly qualified candidate simply because he or she is an Atheist?
• What would we feel about a “National Christian Party?”
• Are we defined by our Atheism?
• Is there anything wrong with an elected representative taking governing guidance from an invisible entity?

As I mentioned earlier, we are a rather diverse group. We tend to think independently and the discussions were lively. Yet, as heated as the discussions were, everyone left the meeting with the full intention of returning in two weeks. Many of the discussions were continued in the parking lot. No one stomped off and we continued an ad hoc meeting with respect and camaraderie. Amazing!

The closest thing to a result is that most felt that the National Atheist Party may not be the best idea but we would still like to see more Atheists in office. The question of Atheism is very narrow and Atheists are all over the map politically. The difficulty becomes apparent as soon as the political party starts building a platform. Each plank that doesn’t relate specifically to the Atheist question will not be universally accepted and cause minor divisions. In some cases, people will reject the party entirely if it takes a controversial position and all positions other than the “god” question are controversial in the Atheist community.

There are existing “secular” organizations that we should support such as: The Secular Coalition for America, the Secular Coalition for Arizona, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State to name a few. There are many more. Most of us are not defined by our Atheism but it is part of who we are. Finally, there were some strong feelings about our elected representatives taking guidance from invisible (or imaginary) entities.