ST PETERSBURG, Fla.—Governor Charlie Crist has been accused of assaulting a man for identifying himself as an atheist during a campaign event held in St. Petersburg. On Friday, March 5th, University of South Florida graduate student Michael Middlebrooks approached the Governor downtown and was greeted with a smile and a handshake until he mentioned he does not believe in a god. Crist reportedly became irate, ripping a campaign sticker off the man’s shirt that was placed there by a staffer moments earlier, and then shouting over his shoulder (as he turned his back), “I feel sorry for you!”

Atheists of Florida President John Kieffer sent a letter to Governor Charlie Crist on Monday asking that he issue an apology to the man targeted for this mistreatment.

“Imagine instead if you had ripped a campaign sticker off some other religious minority,” Kieffer wrote, “say a Jew or a Muslim, shouting, as you did here, that you felt sorry for them. The outrage in such a case would create newspaper headlines around the world.” He continued by referring to the event as an attack on a minority worldview which is an affront, an outrage, and possibly even qualifies as a hate crime “because [Governor Crist] committed this battery while denigrating [the victim's] personal religious worldview.”

Kieffer’s letter is available for public view at the Atheists of Florida web site (http://www.AtheistsofFlorida.org), along with a discussion area where others may read or contribute their own comments.

Rob Curry is a native of St. Petersburg and serves as Executive Director for Atheists of Florida. He added, “Crist should be ashamed of such boorish behavior. His actions and words this past Friday deeply dishonor the town we both call home by making it the setting for a grotesque mockery of his constitutional duty to treat all Florida citizens with equal respect under the law.”

Atheists of Florida members have been actively seeking to end official government prayers at Tampa City Council meetings since January, and more recently at Lakeland City Commission meetings. Their stance is that government should be neutral with respect to religion, neither advocating nor discouraging religious beliefs and rituals.

About Atheists of Florida
Atheists of Florida, founded in 1992, is a nonprofit, educational corporation created to heighten public awareness about atheism and to monitor state/church separation issues throughout the state. The organization is a founding member society of the Atheist Alliance International.

Atheists of Florida serves the needs of a growing nonreligious community of reason whose members disagree with supernatural doctrines while valuing personal liberty as a precious heritage for everyone. Recent national surveys show that 16% of the American population is nonreligious, an increase from 14% two years prior.

Objectives include: (a) advocating state/church separation, (b) defending the civil rights of atheists and others with minority views on religion, (c) educating the public to dispel common misconceptions about atheism, (d) offering social support for atheists, (e) encouraging an inclusive sense of community, inspiration, mutual understanding and respect, and (f) promoting freedom, honesty and integrity

Contact:

John Kieffer
President
(813) 919-9161

Rob Curry
Executive Director
(727) 851-6452

Related posts:

1. The Charitable Atheist

Let’s deal first with the claims that religion and science deal with entirely different aspects of human existence, complement each other, and are not in conflict.

• A recent letter signed by 10,200 clergy from across the nation stated: “We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist.”
• Pope Benedict has also recently come out with similar statements. Speaking to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Pope stated that the dialog between religion and science would actually help the faithful see “the logic of faith in God.”
• An article in The Oberlin Review entitled “Religion and Science” by science columnist Margaret Putney is typical of the thinking of many in the media: “First of all, science cannot answer religious questions. Science can only address the observable. Professor of Physics Dan Styer heard once that a ‘question is trivial if it can be answered with scientific inquiry,’ implying that the questions humans truly care about are those that cannot be answered through observation and physical tests – the basis of all science.”
• The John Templeton Foundation, a powerful voice promoting the compatibility of religion and science, finances scientific research (but only if the study demonstrates compatibility) and its vast Templeton Foundation Press with provocative book titles like Evolution: The Disguised Friend of Faith? and Creative Tension: Essays on Science and Religion.

Many freethinkers will immediately see the obvious fallacy underlying the above ideas: the major conflicts between religion and science have actually not resided in a spiritual realm but in a material one. And the material Universe – how it originated and how it functions – is the exclusive province of science.

As is so often the case, Richard Dawkins has expressed this idea with unexcelled clarity and succinctness: “Most religions offer a cosmology and a biology, a theory of life, a theory of origins, and reasons for existence. In doing so, they demonstrate that religion is, in a sense, science; it’s just bad science. Don’t fall for the argument that religion and science operate on separate dimensions and are concerned with quite separate sorts of questions. Religions have historically always attempted to answer the questions that properly belong to science. Thus religions should not be allowed to retreat away from the ground upon which they have traditionally attempted to fight. They do offer both a cosmology and a biology; however, in both cases it is false.”

I’ve previously mentioned a classic book, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom by Andrew D. White published by Prometheus. Don’t be put off by the ponderous title. I recommend this book as a must-read by all freethinkers. White extensively documents how Christianity made major pronouncements about the material Universe and how it has been proven wrong in each and every case.

Frequently, the church stated that disproving their beliefs about the natural Universe, thought to be infallible, such as the Earth being flat or the Sun rotating around the Earth, would cause their religion to collapse. In each case, however, religion crawled off, licked its wounds, and returned cowed but with a new contorted rationale to continue its beliefs.

The reason religion is consistently wrong in offering explanations about the natural Universe can be summed up in one word: faith. It is the Achilles heel of religion – the ultimate copout (I’ve written about this in a previous post on this site).  Any belief, no matter how absurd, can be justified by faith.  Science, on the other hand, must reach its conclusions using rules of logic and collection of incontrovertible evidence that can be replicated by other scientists. Scientific findings are always subject to revision if contradictory evidence is found, whereas an impervious wall of faith usually justifies religious beliefs.

Religious fundamentalists, of course, are the most vehemently anti-science, at least on issues that conflict with their religious beliefs, while not disputing and reaping the benefits of scientific discoveries not conflicting with these beliefs. Generally, fundamentalists have no interest in changing any of their religious beliefs that clash with science since they believe their religious convictions are infallible.

Gradually, many non-fundamentalist religions have come to “accept” scientific findings as a fallback position, yet they still try to save some remnant of their former religious convictions by saying that a deity is behind the creation and the workings of the natural Universe. This manner of “accepting” scientific findings is bogus and shows an ignorance of the main premise of science that no iota of the supernatural is accepted in any scientific explanation. Non-fundamentalist religion, not science, has usually been the initiator when dialogue is attempted between science and religion.

But if religion and science are irretrievably and fundamentally incompatible, why do the media give the impression that many scientists are religious and find no conflict between religion and science? Again, let’s look at the evidence.

The media often cite the religiosity of great scientists, especially Albert Einstein, as compelling evidence of religion-science compatibility. Like other scientists, Einstein sometimes used the word “god” as synonymous with the laws of nature. He never believed in an anthropomorphic god; biographical accounts record that he rejected religion from an early age.

Upon being asked if he believed in God by Rabbi Herbert Goldstein, Einstein replied: “I believe in Spinoza’s god who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.” In the book Albert Einstein: The Human Side is this quote: “It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”

The beliefs of scientists as a group are much less religious than the general public, particularly those in the natural sciences.  The very best and most prestigious scientists are barely religious at all.

A Harris Poll in 2003 found 90% of the general public believes in God, a figure that can be used to compare with the beliefs of scientists described below.

In 1998, an important report appeared in Nature entitled “Leading Scientists Still Reject God” by Edward Larson and Larry Witham, who did a follow-up study on two landmark studies by psychologist James H. Leuba done in 1914 and 1933. Larson and Witham stated: “Our latest survey finds that, among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever – almost total.”

Leuba found in his initial 1914 study that 40% of scientists in general believed in God; Larson and Witham found this figure unchanged. The story was different and highly significant in the case of “greater scientists,” defined in the 1998 study as members of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, where 93% (72% atheists and 21% agnostic) did not believe in God.

Among the “greater scientists,” belief in God decreased steadily over the years (1914, 28%; 1933, 15%; 1998, 7%). Larson and Witham included in their report this explanatory quote from Oxford University scientist Peter Atkins: “You clearly can be a scientist and have religious beliefs. But I don’t think you can be a real scientist in the deepest sense of the word because they are such alien categories of knowledge.”

In a 2005 scientific conference at City College of New York, a student in the audience rose to ask the panelists, all Nobel laureates, this question: “Can you be a good scientist and believe in God?” Herbert A. Hauptman, speaking for the panel, replied rapidly and forcefully with an unequivocal, “No!” He explained that belief in the supernatural, especially belief in God, is not only incompatible with good science but also that, “this kind of belief is damaging to the well-being of the human race.”

Stephen Weinberg, a physicist at the University of Texas, a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a winner of the Nobel Prize in 1979 for his work in particle physics, expresses views that are typical for the academy.  In regard to the effect of science on religion, he observes, “I think one of the great historical contributions of science is to weaken the hold of religion. That’s a good thing.”

Weinberg further notes that, “The experience of being a scientist makes religion seem fairly irrelevant. Most scientists I know simply don’t think about it very much. They don’t think about religion enough to qualify as practicing atheists.” He added that most scientists he knows who do believe in God believe in “a God who is behind the laws of nature but who is not intervening.”

The effect of science on scientists’ religious beliefs now seems clear. It leads to a progressive loss of these beliefs, and among really top-level scientists, dramatically so. This weakening hold on scientists has increased as the explanatory prowess of science has increased about the material Universe and as scientific investigations of the historical claims of sacred texts have shown them to be grossly unreliable.

Science has come a long way since Isaac Newton wrote a lot more about the Bible than the laws of nature, and scientists thought their primary function was to glorify God by elucidating the workings of his marvelous creation.

Given this evidence, what can be done about religion’s efforts to force reconciliation with science in explaining the natural world?

First, our best scientists have to improve communications with the general public to explain clearly why science and science alone has dominion in the natural Universe.

Second, responding with lawsuits can be effective, as in Dover, Pennsylvania, where an effort to introduce “intelligent design” into a science curriculum was resoundingly defeated. The courts, where conclusions are supposed to be based on logic and evidence much like science, can expose the irrationality of many religious claims.

Third, not only the findings of science but also its basic nature in relation to religion must be better taught in schools.

Fourth, scientific knowledge must be imparted to all of society and more skillfully than it is presently. Most polls show a woeful lack of scientific knowledge in the general population.

Science must stand firm and resist the encroachment of religious explanations of the natural world. As the history of the relationship between religion and science reveals, religion always gradually readjusts its beliefs to accommodate new scientific findings. This interplay eventually results in a progressive weakening of the hold of religion on society, much to the benefit of all.

When the natural world is legitimately ceded to science, religion can freely romp in whatever illusory supernatural world is left to them.

Related posts:

1. Faith: Religion’s Achilles Heel
2. Scientific Conclusion: Prayer Doesn’t Work – Part 1
3. Scientific Conclusion: Prayer Doesn’t Work – Part 2

The idea that any conclusion should be reached without evidence is uniquely bizarre. A person who professes belief without evidence in other than a religious context is thought of as a fool. But in the case of religion, turning a fatal logical flaw into a concept that is revered and held in awe is a remarkable achievement.

Faith is the very lifeblood of religion. Faith gives people license to believe in the imaginary world of the supernatural where the dead rise out of their graves and snakes talk. It provides almost impregnable protection for religion against critical inquiry. Faith is the ultimate cop-out. Completely absurd and contradictory beliefs can be justified. If it weren’t for faith, religion could not exist. Doctrine provides the foundation of religion but without faith the doctrine would be meaningless. Lacking faith, we would never have seen the many abuses associated with monotheistic religion throughout history.

But how did such a foolish idea as religious faith ever come to be regarded with such awe and respect?

One of the major factors promoting faith was the Bible. Faith was mentioned only twice in the Old Testament but several hundred times in the New Testament. Jesus reportedly said, “If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible.” And Paul states that faith is the only way a person can be “saved” when he said, “For by grace are ye saved through faith … not of works, lest any man should boast.”

Nowhere in the Bible does it state that the truth would be revealed through logic and evidence. In fact, it consistently discourages the acquisition of knowledge by these means and instead touts the superiority of knowledge arrived at by faith. The story about Thomas the doubter is a dramatic example of the glorifying of faith. Alone among the disciples, Thomas asked for proof of the extraordinary claim of resurrection, a request that most rational people would consider quite reasonable. Jesus accepted the challenge and provided proof that satisfied Thomas. But then in John 20:29 Christ demolishes the idea of religious skepticism and elevates faith to a profound virtue with this irrational statement: “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” With this passage, Christians would hence regard anyone who exhibited skepticism about their religious claims as “a doubting Thomas.” Religious skepticism became a sin.

Tertullian (c.160-c.230), a Roman theologian and Christian, pushed the virtue of faith to its ultimate. He was the son of a centurion and well educated, especially in law. Tertullian is mainly famous for the quote: “It is certain because it is impossible,” often incorrectly quoted as, “I believe it because it is impossible.” In other words, he thought that if a religious belief seemed impossible, that seeming impossibility made it certain. He believed that the more impossible a religious belief seemed, the more it would strengthen a person’s faith.

Christian leaders through the centuries further fortified the idea of the power of faith by continued propaganda. However, as science in the last few centuries began explaining the working of the Universe through natural means and religion began losing every battle with science, faith began taking a beating.

To counteract this negative trend, conservative Christians staged a series of meetings called the “Niagara Conferences.” The people attracted to the cause were generally poor, rural, and not well educated. It was ironic that two rich, urban, well educated oil tycoons, the Stewart brothers, Lyman and Milton, gave the movement its biggest boost. They financed a series of twelve booklets entitled The Fundamentals (1910-1915). In these booklets the five basic fundamentals necessary to be a “true” Christian were publicized, the ones that had been agreed on at the Niagara conferences. These fundamentals included:

(1) The virgin birth of Jesus Christ
(2) The complete inerrancy of the Bible
(3) Christ’s atonement for the sins of man on the cross
(4) The divine status of Christ
(5) The Resurrection and the Second Coming of Christ.

Christian Fundamentalists with their dogmatic claims were now in a position to answer the conclusions reached by scientific (critical) thinking. Since the Fundamentalists’ conclusions were based on an inerrant source, the direct word of God as revealed in the Bible, then henceforth their conclusions would trump any amount of conclusions reached by logic and evidence. And what was it that rendered this Fundamentalist doctrine valid? Faith, of course. Faith and only faith.

And this strategy from a numerical standpoint has been successful. The Christian Fundamentalist denominations, energized by the renewed empowerment of faith, have been the most rapidly growing of all Christian denominations.

This renewed glorification of faith produces major problems for society. Religious claims based on faith cannot be resolved. The citing of an infallible source ends all rational discussion and sets one group in society against another, or is even divisive within a religious group itself.

A few examples show the detrimental effects of faith-based decisions:

Evolution. Despite being one of the most thoroughly documented conclusions in all of science, Christian Fundamentalists return again and again with some version of Creationism. Belief in Creationism is also behind Fundamentalists’ denial of the scientifically well documented “big bang theory.” In effect, they are claiming that the Bible is a scientific textbook. The denial of the scientific evidence can lead to a type of child abuse since their children don’t receive proper scientific educations and are launched into a scientifically-oriented society with a major handicap.

Homosexuality. There is now much scientific evidence that sexual preference is inborn. But those holding faith-based conclusions don’t want to hear any of the scientific information. They want to hear only what the Bible says. Again, they are using the Bible as a pseudo-scientific textbook.

Abortion and Stem Cell Therapy. Whatever one’s conclusions are on these subjects, they should not be based on an embryo having a soul. There is no scientific evidence that a soul exists in an embryo or any other living organism.

Women’s Rights. The Biblical view is the one that those relying on religious faith use as a guideline for the treatment of women. They show little interest in the scientific studies about women.

Science. Although those using faith-based conclusions readily accept the benefits provided by science, they otherwise have an antipathy toward it since scientific conclusions are regularly in conflict with their faith-based ones. They tend to minimize scientific study for themselves and their children.

Church-State Separation. The true believers have faith in the infallibility of their beliefs and see no reason why they shouldn’t impose them on everybody. They are just doing God’s work.

Abstinence-Only Programs for Teenagers. The faith-based conclusion is that premarital sex is sinful and that abstinence-only programs should be promoted using religious zealotry. Recent scientific studies show that these programs simply don’t work.

Although Christian Fundamentalists rely on and glorify faith more than moderate Christian denominations, the latter also base their religious conclusions on faith, but usually with less dogmatism. Nevertheless, moderate Christians also help perpetuate the idea that faith is a valid way to arrive at truth about the material Universe. In doing so, they encourage the extreme views of the Christian Fundamentalists by seldom criticizing these views.

Most faith-based religious conclusions that are detrimental to society involve the material Universe, not what many freethinkers would regard as an imaginary spiritual region. Science with its use of logic and evidence has earned the right to be the sole interpreter of how the material Universe works by always being right in its numerous fights with religion.

Imagine an ideal world where people realize that faith is a bogus way to reach any valid conclusion, even a religious one. Conflicts would only be resolved using logic and evidence. No longer would debates end when a believer slammed a faith-based door in another person’s face. This dream can be realized by explaining to the media and the public the reasons that conclusions based on faith are irrational and detrimental to society.

Related posts:

1. Are Religion and Science Reconciling?
2. God, The Bible, and the Constitution
3. Book Review – Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, & the Battle for America’s Soul

There are also many secular/atheist charitable organizations in the United States and around the world made up of caring, compassionate, moral, ethical, intelligent people doing tireless work to ease pain and suffering and educate and promote peace. Think of Doctors Without Borders, Amnesty International , Oxfam International, The American Red Cross, and The Union for Concerned Scientists, to name a few. Many secular, atheist, agnostic, nonreligious individuals also quietly contribute to charities of their choice and to their communities.

It’s not surprising, however, that nonbelievers have not been acknowledged as participants in charity. Historically, our communities have been structured so that churches are the main means for large numbers of people to gather to promote and implement charitable work. The following quote from the web site Beingism.org makes this point:

It may be that nonreligious individuals are less likely to form communities than their religious counterparts. Certainly, the lack of a preexisting community (such as an established church) is a relative hindrance to community-building. No doubt also willingness to question pervasive social norms, particularly when they are part of belief systems from which most people derive emotional, social, and/or financial support, probably tends to accompany an individualistic (rather than community-oriented) approach to life. In addition, social stigma reduces the community resources available to nonreligious people, both financially (e.g., nonreligious institutions are not given the same financial benefits as faith-based organizations) and socially (e.g., fear of discrimination leads to increased difficulty in reaching out to find others with similar values). Unfortunately, these factors have fractured communities of nonreligious people, making it extremely difficult for them to agree upon or articulate a positive vision for the future or to create change. This lack of community also leads religious communities to conclude that nonreligious people are without ethics.

One of the biggest myths still being perpetrated is that atheists/nonbelievers are selfish, immoral heretics. The very word ‘atheist’ conjures up images of Hitler, Pol Pot, and Stalin. Take Bill O’Reilly’s Fox News interview with Richard Dawkins. O’Reilly implied that it was ‘atheism’ that led these heinous men to commit crimes against humanity. Mr. Dawkins was given little time to rebut this stupidity.

Religion is everywhere. We are inundated with religious television programming seven days a week. Religious pundits regularly demonize and dismiss secular humanists, atheists, agnostics, and those who are nonreligious, leaving no room for further dialogue or understanding.  The Internet has many sites educating the public about nonbelief, but I doubt that many Christians or other religious folks visit these sites. If they do, it’s to excoriate what is said there, not to understand it.

Few religious people have any grasp of the challenges that atheists must deal wth. People risk losing their jobs, family, friends, and their standing in their community when they go public about their nonbelief. They’re left to feel that they exist in a secret, underground, fringe community whose freedoms are in jeopardy if they speak their truth. I think most religious people would be shocked to learn how many nonbelievers there are in the US. Some are probably sitting in pews on most Saturdays or Sundays, right next to believers.

Nonbelievers come from every walk of life. We’re teachers, lawyers, doctors, nurses, technicians, engineers, gardeners, janitors, soldiers, homemakers, florist, bankers (good ones), politicians (also good ones), you name it. What distinguishes us is that we have learned to THINK FOR OURSELVES; we are free thinkers. We don’t need religious dogma to tell us how to do good work or what it means to be a moral, compassionate human being.

Most atheists who donate their time, money, and energy to charity are not motivated by the wrath of a supernatural entity, by institutionalized pressures to do good work, or by expected Earthly or Heavenly rewards. Yes, there are atheists/nonbelievers who are hateful, inhumane, and mean spirited, just as there religious people who are hateful, inhumane and mean spirited too. These negative descriptors are not synonymous only with atheism.

It must be frightening to religious believers to realize that the number of nonbelievers is growing. Due to the prevailing ignorance perpetuated by believers with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, it’s time for organizations of nonreligious freethinkers to do whatever they can to educate the public and dispel the age-old myth that atheists/nonbelievers are immoral, selfish, and not charitable. Atheists need to become more vocal and visible in numbers, not just as lone activists doing anonymous good works, not for recognition per se, but for educational purposes so that anyone now and in the future can be free to choose not to believe.

Related posts:

1. FL Governor Crist Assaults Atheist; Apology Demanded
2. Getting Support as a Nonbeliever
3. Foundations of Freethought

No related posts.

Should skeptics talk about religion and faith? Why should atheists care about ghost hunting and aliens? Why is this even a problem? The problem lies in the wide-ranging spectrum of freethought. While there is a large overlap of skeptical thought and non-belief in religion, there are differences at both ends. On the one hand, religion is a personal issue for many skeptics, of no interest until it begins to infringe on science, medical care, or education. On the other hand there are atheists who are skeptical but don’t care to tackle ghosts and psychics. Personal woo seems harmless and is only of interest when it achieves cult status.

That leads us to the kinds of tensions that arise at large events like Skeptrack and James Randi’s The Amazing Meetings. These gatherings cover both topics. Skeptrack had panels on everything from “The Truth About Ghost Hunting” to “The Future of Atheism.” Ultimately, we have to remember that we are truly a “big tent” movement. Some of us are going to have to accept that the discussion of UFOs and lake monsters is just another way to promote critical thinking; some of us are going to have to accept that religion is a topic that can and should be debunked like any other. I am hopeful that the freethought movement can handle this challenge. We skeptics are intelligent, passionate people with the ability to realize that we can share our strength at the places where we converge. Everything else is just details.

As far as the demographic issues, the freethought movement is still largely older, white, and male. Women are making large inroads but may still feel like outsiders. Few minorities show up at skeptic groups and events, and college outreach is still in the early stages. Fortunately, I don’t think freethinkers are overtly sexist, racist, or homophobic, except for a few unfortunate exceptions. The biases that still linger are an issue to be sure, but those which a group of rational people could overcome if they wanted.

I don’t want to get into the gender issue too much as it’s been far better covered by others, particularly at Skepchick.org and in an excellent two-part post this week from Greta Christina’s atheist blog.

I would mention, however, that I think Derek and Swoopy, the hosts of the Skepticality podcast and directors of Skeptrack, did a wonderful job this year of bringing balance to the female equation. Women were well represented at the panels and were not only included but also leaders in discussions of science, the future of the movement, education, and critical thinking. The Skepchick panel was a big hit with the attendees and is a strong force for attracting young, female critical thinkers.

Getting together at events like Skeptrack at DragonCon is wonderful and fun and one of the best ways to grow and evolve the freethought movement. Despite a 30+ year history of advancing critical thinking, the current freethought movement is still young enough and really just coming into its own. I believe that we still have the time, the resources, and the open minds to handle these challenges and controversies and create a more cohesive, inclusive, and stronger group going forward. Stick around. Things are just starting to get interesting!

Related posts:

1. The Skeptrack Experience at DragonCon – Part 1
2. Education is Not Just for Kids
3. My Amazing Meeting with James Randi

Skeptrack emerged in 2008 as an offshoot of the original Science track. From time to time the Science track would host panels dedicated to skepticism and critical thinking. These panels were always popular and often packed to capacity. Eventually the DragonCon powers-that-be wondered if an entire track dedicated to skepticism would be worthwhile. They called on Science and Podcasting track veterans Derek Colanduno and Robynn “Swoopy” McCarthy to direct the fledgling Skeptrack – and it was a huge success! Nearly every panel was overflowing, and guests had to be turned away. Derek tells a story about one panel that even he couldn’t get back into so he had to hit the floor and crawl his way through the crowd to get to the microphone and introduce the panelists. The inaugural year of Skeptrack proved that it was definitely here to stay. In 2009 the track was given a bigger room, pulled in even bigger guests, and presented several live skeptic podcasts.

The Skeptrack Experience

Panelists this year included Dr. Phil Plait and Jeff Wagg from the James Randi Educational Foundation; Daniel Loxton of Junior Skeptic Magazine; DJ Groethe, Joe Nickell, and Ben Radford with The Center for Inquiry (CFI) and the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI); David Silverman of American Atheists and the No God Blog; prominent scientists such as Dr. Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) and Dr. Seth Shostak of the SETI Institute; and also several skeptical science fiction authors, bloggers, and podcasters. Oh, then a guy from a Discovery Channel TV show called Mythbusters – the indefatigable Adam Savage. Links to most of the panelists or their organizations can be found at the Skeptrack.org website. Derek and Swoopy also maintain a Facebook page for Skeptrack here.

Like DragonCon itself, the experience at Skeptrack is a bit like homecoming. I spend most of my life surrounded by people who aren’t skeptical of anything, who are not rational or critical thinkers, who often talk about their “church home” and expect me to share their faith. It’s a relief to return to Skeptrack and find a place where I feel like I belong. It’s a bit like a family reunion, except with family that you actually like!

The Skeptrack Panels

A complete list of panels may still be available at the Skeptrack website. Panels began at 1 pm on Friday, September 4th and the skeptic party didn’t stop until the wrap-up panel at 4 pm on Monday, September 7th. Quite a few of the discussions focused on the role of atheism in skepticism and how skeptical believers and non-believers can try to work together. Other discussions were about the current state of the skeptic movement and its future. Daniel Loxton did his wonderful presentation on “What Do We Do Next?”. Several skeptical podcasts presented live shows from the Skeptrack room, including American Freethought, The Skeptic Zone, The Geologic Podcast, Skeptoid, and one of my personal favorites, The Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe.

Surprise last minute guest Adam Savage was present at two very popular panels. The first was mostly about Mythbusters and drew a massive crowd in one of the ballrooms. The other was called “Stealth Science” about getting across a critical thinking or scientific message in entertainment form. Speaking of education through entertainment, there were a couple of panels for skeptical parents and kids — “The Skeptics Guide to Parenting” and the “Mystery Investigators Children’s Show” hosted by the friendly skeptics from the Australian show Mystery Investigators.

Did you miss all the fun?

If you weren’t able to attend Skeptrack 2009, don’t worry! Derek and Swoopy are already making plans for next year, and all of the panelists vowed to come back. Though James Randi was absent this year due to illness, he promised to be back next year via a short video to the audience to express his regret at having to miss the 2009 show. Skeptrack is a great opportunity for those of us who can’t make it out to Las Vegas or London for one of Randi’s JREF Amazing Meetings. If you have a skeptical frame of mind, check Skeptrack out!

Related posts:

1. The Skeptrack Experience at DragonCon – Part 2

Does religion hold the keys to creating a better world or would modern society be better off without it? What does religion mean for us today? These are some of the questions Christopher Hitchens, atheist author, and Dinesh D’Souza, renowned apologist, will bring to the table on Sept. 17, 2009.

The event, to be held at 7pm at the University of Central Florida Arena, promises to be both enlightening and entertaining as the speakers debate the value of religion, the existence of God, and the effects of religion on society.

TICKETS ARE GOING FAST, MOSTLY TO BELIEVERS. STAND UP FOR ATHEISM!

Free tickets at http://thegreatdebate.eventbrite.com/. Directions included on the site.

No related posts.

No related posts.

Let us suppose that the government is entirely at one with the people, and never thinks of exerting any power of coercion unless in agreement with what it conceives to be their voice. But I deny the right of the people to exercise such coercion, either by themselves or by their government. The power itself is illegitimate. The best government has no more title to it than the worst. It is as noxious, or more noxious, when exerted in accordance with public opinion, than when in opposition to it. If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.

– John Stuart Mill, Chapter II: Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion, On Liberty (1859), quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, “Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church

In Part 1 I mentioned the letter written by the Reverend M.R. Watkinson to the Secretary of the Treasury, Salmon P. Chase. Written November 13, 1861, this was the first request according to the U.S. Treasury Department for the recognition of God on U.S. coins. The Rev. Watkinson was a Baptist minister and Secretary Chase an Anglican/Episcopalian.

The letter reads as follows:

You are are about to submit you annual report to Congress respecting the affairs of the national finances.

One fact touching our currency has hitherto been seriously overlooked. I mean the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins.

You are probably a Christian. What if our Republic were now shattered beyond reconstruction? Would not the antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our past that we were a heathen nation? What I propose is that instead of the goddess of liberty we shall have next inside the 13 stars a ring inscribed with the words ‘perpetual union’; within this ring the all seeing eye, crowned with a halo; beneath the eye the American flag, bearing in its field stars equal to the number of the States united. In the folds of the bars the words, ‘God, liberty, law.’

This would make a beautiful coin, to which no possible citizen could object. This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. This would place us openly under the Divine protection we have personally claimed. From my heart I have felt our national shame in disowning God not the least of our present national disasters.

To you first I address a subject that must be agitated.

Secretary Chase replied:

No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins. You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay with a motto expressing in the fewest and tersest words possible this national recognition.

“In God We Trust” was approved December 9, 1863.

It seems clear that both Rev. Watkinson and Sec. Chase are Christian. Rev. Watkinson did not say in the second paragraph, “You are probably a non-Christian or Jew or Muslim, but said, “You are a probably a Christian.” He seems concerned that the nation had, in some way, disowned God. I am not sure what he meant unless he is referring to our secular constitution and the men of the Enlightenment who drafted it. His prime motivation for having God’s name on coins is his awareness of America’s past brutal injustices and inequities, calling it a “heathen nation.”

Did Rev. Watkinson think putting God’s name on coins and having an “all seeing eye crowned with a halo” would set things aright, alleviate the “ignominy of heathenism,” and that “no possible citizen could object?” No citizen or any other religious entity was ever asked!

Having God’s name, Christian or otherwise, on currency or any other property has not stopped inhumane practice anywhere in the world. It serves no purpose except in the minds of believers. Human beings commit crimes against humanity and human beings can end these brutalities. Invoking God does nothing.

These two Christians, Rev. Watkinson and Sec. Chase, were responsible for this action. Politicians and other state and federal government officials who are Christian have tried, and are still trying, to inscribe “In God We Trust” (or the Ten Commandments) on federal and state buildings. Making “In God We Trust” the national motto is incredibly disrespectful to those who practice the many other religions in the U.S. (or practice no religion at all).  It is equally incredible that it was ever allowed.

What I cannot understand is how the Supreme Court can rule that the motto is not wholly Christian and not an explicit breech of the separation of church and State.

Related posts:

1. In God We Trust? – Part 1
2. FL Governor Crist Assaults Atheist; Apology Demanded