Ever notice that microscopic dimensions are often given in relation to the width of a single human hair? “That fiber there is less than a third the width of a single human hair.” It must be important to mention a “single” hair. Scientists don’t want us thinking they’re talking about our entire head.

Do you know “off the top of your head” how wide one of your hairs is? Upon hearing something like the above, do you immediately reach up, yank out a hair (sorry my bald friends, you can use armpit hair) and stare at it trying to conceptualize a third of it?

They ought to just state the measurement for all the good it’s doing them to try and create a metaphor for something that thin. And use the metric system. We don’t know what that’s all about, either.

And while I’m on the subject of worn-out metaphors, on the other end of the scale, why is everything compared to the length of a football field? Why not say 100 yards? Not everybody’s a fan of U.S. football. There’s also the economy of words to consider.

People need to use clichès and metaphors selectively, carefully. Sometimes they make more mischief than provide clarity.

These may not be the only reasons more people believe in gods than aliens, but they’re the most obvious to me.

Since we have as much supporting evidence for the existence of aliens as we do gods, you’d think both would be equally embraced. Yet they aren’t, because…

…our interest in the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe is fairly recent. (Only in the last few hundred years have we come to better understand the requirements for life to exist. Only in the last century have we developed the means to explore the universe in such a way that the conditions that would permit life to exist might be detected. Within the last century we’ve come to accept that space flight is possible.)

…the reward for believing in gods is substantial while believing in aliens doesn’t have any pay-off. (Nearly every religion offers a reward for belief. Forgiveness for transgressions, eternal life, community with other believers, peace of mind, the belief you are loved and cared about. Belief in aliens doesn’t promise any benefit, temporal or eternal.)

Have the terrorists won yet?

An American internet company has inactivated the website of a Dutch right-wing politician, who was planning to release a critical film about the Qur’an, the Islamic holy book, on the site.

Network Solutions announced late Saturday that it had suspended the site, www.fitnathemovie, as the company assesses whether it contravenes its “acceptable use policy.”

Politician Geert Wilders says he’s made a 15-minute film as a warning to the  West about the teachings of the Qur’an.

Wilders is a well-known anti-Islamist who has called for a stop to immigration from Muslim countries and a halt to the building of new mosques in his country.

Wilders has said he’s not against Muslims but against their faith. He has previously talked about the “tsunami of Islamization” in the Netherlands, which is home to about one million Muslims.

After being turned down by at least four broadcasters in the Netherlands, Wilders announced this week that he planned to release Fitna  —the Koranic term for “strife” — on March 31 over the internet.

“If need be, I will personally distribute DVDs,” Wilders told Dutch news agency ANP after hearing about the website’s inactivation.

On Saturday, about 2,000 protesters gathered in downtown Amsterdam to demonstrate against Wilders and his film.

Calling their protest ”Netherlands shows its colours,” demonstrators say they were upset over what they saw as a right-wing witch hunt against Muslims.

Dutch officials fear the movie could spark violent protests in Muslim countries, and have emergency evacuation plans in place for their citizens in those countries.

Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende has said he rejects Wilders’s views, but supports his freedom of speech.  (Source)

The Muslim terrorists  have done better than killing all the infidels, they’ve made us afraid.  In our fear, we will do what they couldn’t, destroy Western civilization from within.  In our fear we’ll restrict liberty, bypass Constitutional protections and permit our government to act in any way they see fit…just save us from the terrorists.  We once thought the greatest threat to our way of life were the Japanese, the Germans, the Muslims.  We were wrong.  The greatest threat we face is our own fear, our own impotence to provide security while at the same time maintaining our freedom.

I just heard a TV ad for a clothing store that repeats the phrase “Family Values” several times. Ostensibly they’re referring to values (savings) for the whole family.

On another level, they’re parroting a phrase popular in society. That some customers might associate this store with a religious right catchphrase that appears to imply wholesomeness and decency is a subtle attempt to manipulate opinion. Of course all advertising is an attempt to manipulate opinion, but I don’t often see advertisers trying to incorporate phrases more appropriate to the political spectrum to sell dresses and shirts.

Being aware of these efforts to put thoughts in your head that have nothing to do with the product in question is the first step in resisting such efforts.

There’s an interesting and valuable debate going on across several blogs concerning one of atheism’s most visible proponents, Richard Dawkins. It should hearten atheists and free thinkers to know that in both of those camps there are no demigods, no one who is above critique and criticism.

As best as I can find, the argument against Dawkin’s approach to atheism started here;

I (and apparently Jim Lippard) went to see Dawkins’ talk based on his The God Delusion, which I have critiqued before. I was impressed at the technique. It was definitely the very best Revivalist Sermon I have seen. I was not impressed by the content, nor by the fact that Dawkins was playing for laughs, applause and identification of Us versus Them.

In particular I was annoyed that those of us who do not condemn someone for holding religious beliefs were caricatured as “feeling good that someone has religion somewhere”. Bullshit. That is not why we dislike the Us’n'Themism of TGD. We dislike it because no matter what other beliefs an intelligent person may hold, so long as they accept the importance of science and the need for a secular society, we simply do not care if they also like the taste of ear wax, having sex with trees, or believing in a deity or two. Way to go, Richard. Good bit of framing and parodying the opposition. Real rational.

I noted with interest that he seems to have abandoned his claim that an agnostic is somebody who has an evenly balanced probability assessment of the existence of God, which is total crap. But he failed to say if that meant he now accepts that while atheists and theists alike are making knowledge claims, agnostics simply aren’t. I doubt it.

What I most came away with was that he sets it up that one simply cannot understand the existence of religion, and so must treat it as an evil, immoral, or simply irrational thing.

…Richard doesn’t want to understand; he wants to demonise, diminish and eliminate the Enemy, so as to make the Bright Us, the ones with the Red A, confortable. As you say, Richard, simply because a belief makes us comfortable, doesn’t mean it is true.

And while we’re on truth, let’s stop pretending all this talk of truth is scientific and not religious in itself. Scientific ideas are tested or not, reliable or not. They are never True, just good enough. To talk about Truth is to help yourself to the trappings of religion under the counter, as it were. And this is the final point I want to make about Dawkins on religion: he is trying to produce exactly the same effects as religion does. Social cohesion, derogation of the Other, ideas that everyone can take for granted. I wish it were the case that he was taking the scientific approach here, but at best he’s using the cachet of science to promote his quasi-religion.

To clarify: I don’t think there’s a god or a higher power. I think we need to have freedom for all from the tyranny of religious extremism and absolutism. I think religions should not have exceptional standing in a secular society. And I think that includes the rhetorical polemics of Richard Dawkins. It isn’t a religion yet, but it’s not from a lack of trying on his part. If you want free-thinking, then think freely. Don’t just kneejerk react to religions around you: think.

( John Wilkins at Evolving Thoughts )

I certainly agree with the last paragraph, and I can understand John’s preceding comments.

The conversation continues at Joshua Rosenau’s blog Thoughts from Kansas;

Let’s repeat and paraphrase: I don’t know and don’t care if there’s a god or a higher power, any more than I care if there’s an invisible teapot orbiting Jupiter. I think we need to have freedom for all from the tyranny of religious extremism and absolutism. I think religions should not have exceptional standing in a secular society. And I think that includes the rhetorical polemics of Richard Dawkins. It isn’t a religion yet, but it’s not from a lack of trying on his part. If you want free-thinking, then think freely. Don’t just kneejerk react to religions around you: think.

Thinking, respect for other people, rational consistency and acceptance of the measurable aspects of the universe around us: these are a few of the things by which I judge a person, and that person’s arguments. Dawkins’s record on those measures is fairly poor, at least of late. This isn’t about being courtiers, it isn’t about shutting anyone up. It’s about Dawkins putting himself forward as the representative of science communicators, and of the non-theistic community. And it’s about him doing a poor job on both fronts.

While in a comment to Joshua’s post, Larry Moran says;

The word “respect” is subject to abuse. I’m sure there are lots of people you don’t respect for very good reasons. Let’s not adopt a knee-jerk model of politeness that requires us to “respect” everyone no matter how ridiculous or evil they might be.
Furthermore, let’s not confuse “respect” with a way of behaving that avoids confrontation. There are segments of American society who think that open disagreement with someone demonstrates lack of respect. That’s certainly not true in my case, nor in the case of Richard Dawkins. There are lots of people I respect even though I enjoy engaging them in heated debates. Dawkins is one of those people and so is John Wilkins.

If you judge a person by their “rational consistency” then you and I, and Richard Dawkins, are on the same side. We all recognize that people like Ken Miller and Francis Collins are seriously deficient in that category. Right?

I find myself agreeing in different degrees with all the sentiments express above. Atheism isn’t an organized club with rules and guidelines. There are some atheists who are confrontational and perhaps a bit extreme in their characterizations of religion and religious believers. There are others who do not wish to confront theists, those who adopt the attitude that everyone has the right to believe whatever they will, that all beliefs are subjective and personal. Perhaps these positions represent the extreme left and right wings of atheism. I’m not someone who supports extremism, I’m much more a moderate on most issues, seeing a world that is composed of shades of gray rather than a stark black or white view. There are times when confrontation is necessary, a form of self-defense against extreme opinions. Other times confrontation is unnecessary and even counter-productive. Too much bluster can mute the message by eliciting emotional reactions to the manner in which it was delivered.

So let me suggest a middle ground in this debate. Confrontational or not, moderate or extreme. it’s a matter of personal preference which approach you adopt and which you endorse. Dawkins may offend your personal attitude toward speaking or writing about atheism, but that does not invalidate his message. He will reach those unaware of the opinions of the more reticent among us. Meanwhile the more soft-spoken atheist will appeal to those turned off by Dawkins’ outspokenness. There is no right or wrong way to be an atheist. The joy of free thinking is that if you disagree with Dawkins or Harris or any of the other more “celebrated” atheists, you can post your own thoughts and opinions.

The one persistent comment in the above posts with which I absolutely agree is, “If you want free-thinking, then think freely. Don’t just kneejerk react to religions around you: think.” My only edit would be to replace “religions” with “any thought not your own you encounter”.

Following is an actual letter to the editor, a shining example of parroting unoriginal clichès without making any effort on the part of the writer to think for himself or even put his canned comments into his own words:

Thoughts on the ‘God’ question

“In God we trust.” Well, except for Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Ellen Johnson, Michael Newdow and a minority portion of the rest of the population that sometimes labels themselves “brights.”

The evidence of an intelligent creator surrounds us: Everything from the vast wonders of space to the mysteries of quantum physics stand as witnesses. So, if there is a God, his word is the Bible. The Bible tells us either heaven or hell awaits us after we depart the tent of flesh we now occupy. As a believer, I trust I’ll be in heaven. But, if I’m wrong, then there is no consequence of hell, there’s just nothing. I either win big or get away free and clear.

For the atheist, if they are correct, they’d get the same nothing. Unless of course they are wrong, which would mean an eternity of torment in hell. They’ll only know for sure when they get there, and it will be too late. Dawkins would have his evidence then. He can deny, but he’ll know the truth soon enough. I’d say Madeline Murray O’Hair, Charles Darwin, Carl Sagan, Lenin, Mao, Hitler and many others are believers now.

–Bill Cook of Mission Viejo

Let’s break this down and see if Bill is speaking the “truth” or just repeating the same tired arguments that have been debunked many times before.

“In God we trust.” Well, except for Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Ellen Johnson, Michael Newdow and a minority portion of the rest of the population that sometimes labels themselves “brights.”

While I sincerely doubt Bill has ever read anything written by Dawkins, Harris and the others or actually knows what the Brights stand for, he is essentially correct that these people do not trust in god.

The evidence of an intelligent creator surrounds us: Everything from the vast wonders of space to the mysteries of quantum physics stand as witnesses.

If you expect to find an intelligent creator, I’m sure nature appears to support your preconceived notion. It is not, however, a universal truism. Different people will interpret nature according to their own beliefs and conclusions. A personal perception is proof of nothing beyond a person’s individual mindset. To the scientist, skeptic and non-believer, the awesomeness of nature illustrates the awesomeness of nature, nothing more.

So, if there is a God, his word is the Bible. The Bible tells us either heaven or hell awaits us after we depart the tent of flesh we now occupy.

So if there is a god, he has to be your particular god? What supports that contention? Why couldn’t a god be one of any of the hundreds of gods humans have believed in throughout history? You said nature was a witness to (perhaps you meant evidence for) an intelligent creator. How did you get from that thought to supposing that an intelligent creator is necessarily the Biblical god? That seems to be a combined leap-of-logic-leap-of-faith. As to your last point, many Christians would disagree with your “heaven or hell” position. There is no unanimity among Christians on that subject.

As a believer, I trust I’ll be in heaven. But, if I’m wrong, then there is no consequence of hell, there’s just nothing. I either win big or get away free and clear.

Bad news, Bill. That would only be true if you knew for sure you believed in the right god. What if you almost got it right and the god of the Jews was the real god. And here you are worshiping a false messiah. No cookies for you, Bill. And since god has steadfastly refused to visit the Earth in person lately, you only have your own assurances to convince yourself your god is the correct god to believe in. If there is a god but it’s not the god you worship, you might not enjoy the afterlife after all.

For the atheist, if they are correct, they’d get the same nothing. Unless of course they are wrong, which would mean an eternity of torment in hell. They’ll only know for sure when they get there, and it will be too late. Dawkins would have his evidence then. He can deny, but he’ll know the truth soon enough.

A continuation of your misapplication of logic as detailed above. If there is no hell because the real god is a different one than you suppose, the atheist won’t suffer any worse than Christians who picked the wrong horse in the race. In addition, you expose one of the least convincing arguments in Christianity. “You’ll know once you die.” Isn’t it convenient to posit a truth that can only be appreciated after death. That’s no better than saying there’s a book in another galaxy that backs everything I say. Just go there and read it, you’ll see.

I’d say Madeline Murray O’Hair, Charles Darwin, Carl Sagan, Lenin, Mao, Hitler and many others are believers now.

Whether they are or not no one, including you, Bill, can say. What we do know with having to resort to faith is that they’re dead. Any more than that is just speculation on anyone’s part. No one knows from experience what happens after death. Factually, we have no reason to believe anything does.

Here are snippets from a couple of recent posts by Colin McGinn. Included are references to two recent publications of his, a book and a book review, the reading of which should offer even more food for thought.

MF

…religious belief does connect with a topic that does interest me: psychological manipulation. As it happens, I have a new book (very short) coming out on it next month, called–wait for it–Mindfucking. In it I analyze this concept, just as we analytic philosophers are supposed to. People I mention it to think I must be being funny or provocative, but it is actually quite a serious work, with many a ponderous formulation. I’m interested in how our minds can be manipulated–by other people, the media, governments, whole disciplines. Perhaps one’s main intellectual responsibility is to ensure that one’s mind has not been fucked by outside forces intent on manipulation and control.

Gloom

I just wrote a review of Against Happiness by Eric G. Wilson for the Wall Street Journal. It’s an interesting and provocative book, arguing that American culture is far too obsessed with happiness and not respectful enough of misery. The author admits to his melancholic tendencies, but celebrates them, rather than lamenting them. The general point is that gloom produces insight, creativity and depth, while happiness is bland and static. It raises the question in my mind of whether utilitarianism might have neglected the fact that melancholy can sometimes be a good thing–both instrumentally and intrinsically. Instrumentally, because it can lead to wisdom, creativity etc; but also intrinsically, in that a certain sort of melancholy might be good in itself.

A reader of this blog offered today to send me a copy of “From Mirror Neurons to Moral Neuropolitics“, a paper discussing some of the latest findings on the topic of empathy.

I’m quite eager to read it. Empathy ( from the Greek εμπάθεια, “to make suffer”) has always been a bit of a mystery to those who see life as simply a matter of genetic survival. Love and empathy often cause us to act in ways contrary to the imperative to pass along our genes. Humans will put their own survival at risk because of empathic feelings or thoughts. In this context, empathy could be seen as detrimental to evolution. Yet it is generally acknowledged as one of our most noble motivations. I’ll be posting portions of the paper, if permitted, for those of you who share my fascination with this quizzical ability we have to recognize, perceive and experientially feel the emotion of another without actually sharing those feelings or emotions.

A lot of people think that way.  How many “Urgent: Virus Alert” emails have you received from well-meaning relatives and friends that warn how clicking on a certain link will clean out your address book or erase your hard drive?  Similar emails make the rounds every year.  None have been fact-checked.  Yet many of them have caused people to damaged their computers or worry unnecessarily.

Of course not all are that serious.  In fact some are quite humorous.  The only thing about them that’s misleading is the attribution.  Yet even an innocent joke can cause hard feelings between people.  Here’s an example of a comical email that’s been passed around a lot:

To the citizens of the United States of America:

In light of your failure to nominate competent candidates for President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately.

Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths, and territories (except Kansas , which she does not fancy). Your new prime minister, Gordon Brown, will appoint a governor for America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire may be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed. To aid in the transition to a British Crown Colony, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:

1. You should look up “revocation” in the Oxford English Dictionary.

2. Then look up aluminium, and check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it.

3. The letter ‘U’ will be reinstated in words such as ‘favour’ and ‘neighbour.’ Likewise, you will learn to spell ‘doughnut’ without skipping half the letters, and the suffix -ize will be replaced by the suffix -ise. Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. (look up ‘vocabulary’).

4. Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler noises such as “like” and “you know” is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. There is no such thing as US English. We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell- checker will be adjusted to take account of the reinstated letter ‘u’ and the elimination of -ize. You will relearn your original national anthem, God Save The Queen.

5. July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday.

6. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers, or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you’re not adult enough to be independent. Guns should only be handled by adults. If you’re not adult enough to sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist then you’re not grown up enough to handle a gun. Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a vegetable peeler. A permit will be required if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.

7. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and this is for your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean.

8. All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you will start driving on the left with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables. Both roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.

9. The Former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been calling gasoline)-roughly $10 per US gallon. Get used to it.

10. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips, and those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called crisps. Real chips are thick cut, fried in animal fat, and dressed not with catsup but with vinegar.

11. The cold tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will be referred to as beer, and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as Lager. South African beer is also acceptable as they are pound for pound the greatest sporting nation on earth and it can only be due to the beer. They are also part of British Commonwealth - see what it did for them.

12. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as good guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors to play English characters. Watching Andie McDowell attempt English dialogue in Four Weddings and a Funeral was an experience akin to having one’s ears removed with a cheese grater.

13. You will cease playing American football. There is only one kind of proper football; you call it soccer. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which has some similarities to American football, but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like a bunch of nancies). Don’t try Rugby – the South Africans and Kiwis will thrash you, like they regularly thrash us.

14. Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the World Series for a game which is not played outside of America. Since only 2.1% of you are aware that there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. You will learn cricket, and we will let you face the South Africans first to take the sting out of their deliveries.

15. You must tell us who killed JFK. It’s been driving us mad.

16. An official from Her Majesty’s Inland Revenue (i.e. tax collector) will be with you shortly to ensure the collection of all monies due (backdated to 1776). Until these are paid, there will be no representative government in the USA, in line with the policy: “No representation without taxation.”

17. Daily Tea Time begins promptly at 4 pm with proper cups and saucers (never mugs), and with high quality biscuits (cookies) and cakes; strawberries in season.

18. Some tea has gone missing, and we expect it back. We’ll be searching Boston first.

God save the Queen. She should be saved, and only He can.

John Cleese

A quick search of Snopes reveales the truth about this letter.  It has a long internet history, it was written about eight years ago.  You can further investigate Snopes’ claims by checking their references.  (You’ll also find some comical rebuttals on that page.)  Another source of information on urban legends is ScamBusters.org.

Remember, just because it appears on the internet doesn’t mean the information is valid.  Think, and investigate claims, for yourself.

(Did you at least click on that link to see if I was accurate, or did you just take my word for it?)

One of the factors that makes religion attractive and atheism unattractive to many people is that atheism offers no community. Humans are social animals. Churches have long exploited this aspect of our humanity. I would wager that many theists place more value on their church membership than they do on the theological implications of belief.

A problem with trying to organize atheists into a community is that we have a single point of view in common, our disbelief in gods. Other than that, we believe a wide range of concepts that we may or may not share with other atheists. I know atheist UFO fanatics, atheists who follow politics “religiously” and others who barely know who the president is, atheist hunters and atheist animal-rights advocates.

Free thought isn’t a set of beliefs or attitudes, it’s the means by which a thinking human comes to conclusions without being distracted or blinded by preconceived notions. So even free thought doesn’t really offer itself as a rallying point for a group. “We’re free thinkers!” “What do you free think about?” “Uh, everything…”

Free thought groups and atheist groups have been reasonably compared to a herd of cats. I think that’s an accurate assessment.

Why do we only require disproof of an unproven hypothesis when it comes to religion?

If I claimed I had built a machine that generated energy out of thin air and ran forever, is anyone obliged to spend time disproving that claim? Wouldn’t any rational, sane person simply say, “Let me know when you have proof of that” and dismiss such nonsense out-of-hand? Is there even a need to be agnostic about such a claim? Of course not. Not even the PC crowd would insist we respect this claim as possible. It’s nonsensical, and anyone who paid attention in school after the third grade would know that.

That’s why we argue against religion. It’s been given a free pass for too long. It’s time those of us who remain unconvinced by theistic claims that defy reason and nature explain and defend our reasons for not buying this silliness.

It appears I have a couple more months to finish the books I’m currently reading and get my desk cleared, so I can grab a copy of Secular Conscience: Why Belief Belongs in Public Life by Austin Dacey.  From the advance reviews on Amazon, it is going to be a fantastic read.

Sam Harris, author of the New York Times best sellers, The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation
“Dacey seeks nothing less than to interrupt a suicide, and he has written a beautiful primer on how our secular tradition can be rescued from self-defeat. The Secular Conscience reveals how simplistic notions of privacy, tolerance, and freedom keep dangerous ideas sheltered from public debate. This is an extraordinarily useful and lucid book.”

Susan Jacoby, author, Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism
“Austin Dacey’s The Secular Conscience is sorely needed at a time when both the religious right and the religious left claim that there can be no public or private morality without religion. With wit and a philosopher’s insight, Dacey explains exactly why secular morality, grounded in an ethical approach that relies on reason rather than supernatural faith, is sorely needed in the public square.”

Ibn Warraq, author of Defending the West
“Whenever I watch a riot over cartoons or meet another Muslim dissident forced to write under a pseudonym, I wonder, where are the Western secular liberals? Why do they shrink from defending freedom of conscience for all? Thanks to Austin Dacey, I now have an answer. As his piercing analysis shows, liberals have lost their grip on the real meaning of freedom. Only with a restored commitment to conscience as an objective moral ideal can they face down fundamentalists while constructively engaging with reformers of the faith. The Secular Conscience should be read by every friend of the open society.”

Book Description
The open, secular society is in retreat. From Washington to Rome to Tehran, religion is a public matter as never before, and secular values–personal autonomy, toleration, separation of religion and state, and freedom of conscience–are attacked on all sides and defended by few. The godly claim a monopoly on the language of morality in public debate, while secular liberals stand accused of standing for nothing.Secular liberals have undone themselves. For generations, too many have insisted that questions of conscience–religion, ethics, and values–are “private matters” that have no place in public debate. Ironically, this ideology prevents them from subjecting religion to due scrutiny when it encroaches on individual rights and from unabashedly defending their own moral vision in politics for fear of “imposing” their beliefs on others.

In this incisive book, philosopher Austin Dacey calls for a bold rethinking of the nature of conscience and its role in public life. Inspired by an earlier liberal tradition he traces to Spinoza and John Stuart Mill, Dacey urges liberals to lift their self-imposed gag order and argues for a secularism based on the objective moral value of questions of conscience.

He likens conscience to the press in an open society: it should be protected from coercion and control, not because it is private, but because of its vital role in the public sphere. Conscience is free, but not free from shared standards of truth and right.

Marshalling the latest research on belief, the mind, and ethics, The Secular Conscience delivers a compelling ideal for the future of the open, secular society.

About the Author
Austin Dacey, Ph.D. (New York, NY), is a philosopher with the Center for Inquiry think tank in New York City, where he serves as the United Nations representative and a contributing editor to Skeptical Inquirer and Free Inquiry magazines. He teaches philosophy, ethics and science education at Polytechnic University and State University of New York at Buffalo. He is the author of The Case for Humanism (with Lewis Vaughn) and articles in numerous publications including the New York Times.

Isn’t free thinking really anti-god?

Personally, I’d like to see the world move into the 21st century without the burden of trying to accommodate 1st century thinking. Society has evolved far beyond the conditions of the 1st century, yet the majority of Americans are still trying to decide our future based on concepts appropriate for a 2000 year old nomadic band of Middle Easterners.

I’d like to see modern humans divorce themselves from all ancient myths and superstitions, not just religion. Why do people still insist on “trusting luck”, crossing their fingers, knocking on wood, wearing lucky charms? True, we’re only just starting to understand how nature works, but we already know enough to start leaving our nonsensical beliefs behind.

I have no intention of “destroying” your faith. I’m not even sure how skepticism and doubt could do that if your faith were strong. What I would like to do is present counter-proposals to all the things theists insist can only be explained by the gods so that they have another point of view to consider. Perhaps they’ll finally see that believing in gods is no longer necessary and is even unhealthy in many situations and begin to look around them with a new perspective.

Can’t  you question the existence of gods without referring to believers?

Usually not, since the gods are only kept around by the belief of their followers. It’s the believers who create the gods. We can only address their belief.

(Posted in response to questions I’ve recently been asked)