In Case You Wondered…
I’m alive and well, and while I’d like to say I’ve been too busy to blog, the truth is that I’ve been sidetracked with a heavy dose of existential angst / ennui and some fairly heavy depression.
What is the meaning of life? Why are we here? Why am I here? These are the age-old questions I’ve been struggling with.
When you believe in god and an afterlife, those questions I think are much more easily answered. You are alive because God blessed you with life. The meaning of your life is to do good works and honor God… I know I’m over-simplifying the theist perspective, but I think I’m fairly close to the mark.
Anyway, the absence of a god-based reason for existence, left a vacuum. And, as Spinoza said, nature abhors a vacuum – I felt compelled to fill it with something.
The short of it is that it’s all there now. My life has purpose and meaning and I am happy and at peace in my little place in the universe. Life is far more wondrous than it ever was when I was a believer. And the really awesome part is that now that I’ve got the big picture stuff sorted out, I’m ready to fill in the details (e.g. specific goals for my next 40+ years!).
Getting here was difficult, but I wouldn’t trade where I am now for anything. It’s so great to be free.
Recently Read Books
–
Links For Edmonton Atheists & Skeptics
A fellow atheist from Edmonton asked me if I knew of any upcoming atheism related events. Being as unorganized as I have been, I had nothing to offer at the time. However, I’ve fully embraced Google Calendar as my time management tool of choice and now feel better equipped to point Edmonton atheists/skeptics in the right direction…
- Society of Edmonton Atheists (SEA)
- SEA Facebook Page (great way to stay connected)
- Greater Edmonton Skeptics Society (GESS)
- GESS Facebook Page
- SEA and GESS Google Calendars (events, meetings, get-togethers etc). Look at the bottom-right corner of the page for the “Add to Google” link.
- Skeptic North Blog (Not just for Edmontonians)
- Skeptically Speaking Radio/Podcast (note the Facebook, Twitter links in right sidebar)
These links will help you connect with the atheist and skeptical communities in Edmonton. Now, you’ll have to excuse me – I have to go accept some calendar invitations!
The Dunning–Kruger Effect aka Confirmation Bias on Steriods aka Creationists aka People Who Watch Fox News
In my Does Religious Faith Instill Hatred & Distrust of Science post I mentioned confirmation bias – a person’s tendency to recognize evidence that supports their position, while ignoring and/or downplaying that which opposes their position.
According to the Dunning–Kruger effect, some poor unfortunates suffer from something far more severe.
Apparently, they are dumb + they are prone to confirmation bias + they have an inability to recognize their dumbness + they ironically think that they are the opposite of dumb, and that smart people are the dumb ones.
Ouch ouch ouch ouch ouch!
Godless ≠ Without Morals
I sometimes get emails. The latest one is from a Christian who shared his opinion (a tired old claim) that, without his god, there is no morality.
As if that weren’t enough to get the last hair on my head standing up, last night I watched Dinesh D’Souza make the audacious claim that all of the good morals in western society are Christian morals.
I’ve often heard it said that the 10 Commandments is the ‘ultimate moral code’ (Dinesh has said something to this effect on numerous occasions). Let’s focus on them to see if the claim is true.
Table via Wikipedia
As you can see, the first three or four commandments (3 vs 4 depending on what brand of Christian you are) are all about worshiping god (note that I am lumping ‘keep the Sabbath’ in this grouping). Are these first commandments really about morality? It seems to me they are not – that they are about brow-beating people into accepting an insecure god’s authority. I would challenge anyone to show me how those 3/4 commandments make us more moral.
On to the remaining commandments…
Honor your father and mother: Sounds reasonable on the surface, but is it as wise as it could be? Why not “respect others as you would like to be respected”? And, while we’re on the subject, do all parents deserve to be honored, or is it more accurate that some parents are worthy and others are not? What about parents who abuse their children? Are they to be honored at all times as the commandment commands?
You shall not murder: A pretty darn good rule. My questions about it are 1) Would we all be running around killing people without it, and 2) Does this rule not exist in other societies (religious and secular)? In other words, does Christianity think it’s the only world view to think not killing is a good thing?
You shall not steal: Again, this is a pretty good rule but I can imagine there to be nuances that it doesn’t consider. For instance, if your family is starving, and you live under a rich tyrant, would it not be acceptable to steal from him/her to keep your loved ones from perishing? This is similar to the ‘honor your father and mother’ commandment in that I don’t think it’s as wise as it could be (remember we are basing this discussion on the claim that the Ten Commandments are the ultimate moral code).
You shall not lie (bear false witness): I think we can all agree that, sometimes, lying is perfectly acceptable. Lying to avoid hurting a person’s feelings is ok. Lying to avoid being persecuted by an unjust ruler is ok. Again, couldn’t this take a wiser form?
You shall not commit adultery: This commandment really gets to personal feelings about what a marriage is and should be. The problem is that there are some variations in what people believe in this regard. What if two people no longer love one another, but have amicably agreed to remain married until their children have grown? What happens if, under these conditions, they want to have an ‘open’ marriage? Of course, a very religious person may view this choice as unacceptable in the eyes of their god, but a more secularly minded individual may think otherwise. Their viewpoint may be, “adultery is ok as long as each partner agrees and it doesn’t hurt the children”.
You shall not covet: There is a lot I could say here, but I will just say one thing – while it may not put a person’s mind at ease to be always wanting something he does not have, I cannot see it to be such a crime as to be worthy of eternal damnation. You could go your entire life wishing to have your neighbor’s wealth (or wife) but how does that mental wish make you hell bound?
Other Shortcomings of the Ten Commandments: I am sure there are others, but here are just a few off the top of my head:
- Child Molestation: This should be a no-brainer if you’re making commandments.
- Rape: Ditto
- Slavery: At one time, Christians justified slavery using verses in the Bible. Now we know better. Why wasn’t something about slavery included in the ultimate moral code?
- Equality: Women, blacks and now gays have all struggled for equality. Why didn’t something about basic human rights get included in the Christian moral code?
Ok, so we’re done looking at the Ten Commandments. To me anyway, it’s pretty clear that they are anything but an ‘ultimate moral code’. Some Christians will say that the Ten Commandments are not everything – that there is lots of other good stuff in the Bible. My answer is to agree that there is some good stuff in the Bible. However, there is also a lot of bad stuff. There are passages about stoning disobedient children, stoning women for not being virgins, carrying out genocide and much, much more.
To those charges, the liberal Christian pleads that much of the Bible should not be taken literally – that there are hidden meanings and positive messages to be found behind those passages. The passages don’t mean what they say. In other words, we need to better interpret them.
Ok fine but, at this point, I think it’s worth mentioning that interpreting and re-interpreting Bible passages has been going on for a long, long time. In fact, this sort of thing is what’s led to the multitude of Christian denominations we have today. Generally speaking, what happens is a person (or group of people) disagrees with the moral code being promoted by a given faith. In some circumstances, the dispute ends gracefully with a new moral interpretation. A good example of this is how most of Christianity eventually recognized that slavery was bad. In more extreme cases, new denominations & religions have splintered off to propagate their own moral preferences.
In both cases, their is one commonality – people engage their brains, review the Bible, strip away the bad stuff, and evolve their understanding of the Bible so that it can be made consistent with the morality of the day.
Did you pay attention to that last bit? It is people who have historically evolved their moral codes – not the Bible, and it is the re-interpretations that have allowed the Bible to stay morally relevant.
And even then, it seems to me that the Bible is grossly inadequate compared to other sources of morality. Which sources? How about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (a clearly secular document)? I’m sorry but, on issues of human rights, the Bible doesn’t even hold a candle.
That specific document aside, there are many places where you can begin satisfying your desire to learn about morality and to formulate your own code of ethics. Philosophy loves ethics and morality and has a nasty habit (according to some!) of failing to mention deities. Here are a few links to get you started:
- Wikipedia’s Ethics Page – a good jump-off point
- Index of Ethical Movements (another good jump-off point)
- Objectivism
- Humanism
- Secular Ethics
- Hedonism
- Utilitarianism
- Stoicism (A.C. Grayling says much of Christian thought was co-opted from Stoicism)
- Consequentialism
- Alternatives to the Ten Commandments
Or you might read up on what some of the world’s most famous philosophers have had to say. Great thinkers like:
My own morality leans heavily on humanism and the Ethic of Reciprocity (a virtually universal ethical standard – not found solely in the Christian version of the ‘Golden Rule’) but I enjoy reading about other schools, and view the subject as a lifetime pursuit. I think one of the most important things we can keep in mind when considering ethics and morality is that we aren’t obligated to buy into any one school of thought. It’s your brain – use it.
I’m curious if any of my readers subscribe to a particular school of ethical thought, and what resources they’ve used to arrive at their own views on the subject. Please share.
In the meantime, I hope it’s now clear that Godless ≠ Without Morals.
Attempts@Rational Behavior Is Good For Your Health
I often have a sore neck. The Doc says I need to do more neck exercises so I’m visiting Attempts at Rational Behavior more than I used to. What does AARB do? They provide highlights of the weird shit religious people say on Twitter (and elsewhere, but mostly on Twitter).
The incredulous “no, no no” side-to-side shaking of my head is going to do wonders for my neck – I just know it.
Does Religious Faith Instill Hatred & Distrust of Science?
I have a friend who I’m finding myself disagreeing with more and more lately. This person is intelligent and generally makes a lot of sense – even when we have ideological disagreements (such as on political matters).
But lately, the disagreements have baffled and troubled me as I’ve put pieces of the puzzle together to realize how amazingly anti-science he is. Examples:
- Climate Warming: He continually quotes out of date research and the ramblings of “scientists” with iffy (at best) credentials who claim that climate warming is a hoax.
- Evolution: I am not exaggerating much when I say he sounds like a Ray Comfort clone. “Evolution is not a science because it’s not repeatable or observable” and “Evolution takes faith” have escaped his lips on more than one occasion.
And, in addition to those two specific examples, I’ve also heard him call science “scientism” and say that “science is a religion”.
However, because the conversations have been widely spread apart (months at times), and because he is elusive about his beliefs, I was never able to make sense of him …until recently.
I was listening to an episode of The Skeptics Guide to the Universe when one of the hosts made the statement that, when science conflicts with a person’s ideologies, that person will often reject the science. Then, he went on to say that the most prevalent cases of these rejections flow from conflicts between science and religion.
Suddenly, two years of discussions with my friend came into clear focus…
- He has conservative leanings.
- He’s a climate warming denier.
- He’s anti-evolution.
- He’s made statements about people and even countries being punished by God for their wrongdoings.
All of these things paint a picture that we tend to ascribe to conservative Christians. Here are two of the consistencies expanded a bit to help illustrate the point I’m making:
- Global Warming: It’s very common for conservative Christians to deny that we humans are having any appreciable effect on the planet’s temperature. This comes partly from the biblically inspired belief that it would be arrogant to think humans could have that much of an impact on God’s creation. It also comes from the connection to the end-times prophecy that – even if we were impacting the earth’s temperature, it is just part of God’s plan to bring on the rapture. In other words, bring on the destruction of the earth – because the worthy won’t be here to live on it anyway. This sort of thinking is exactly why non-believers feared George Bush being at the helm of the world’s largest nuclear arsenal.
- Evolution: Most of the world’s Christians have no issue with the theory of evolution via Natural Selection (e.g. Catholics & Anglicans are a-ok with it). Indeed, there are other religions (e.g. Hinduism) that also accept it as the explanation for the diversity of life on earth. Not so with the conservative Christian crowd. For them, evolution – especially human evolution – is an attack on the belief that God created man in his image. Humans did not come into exist by a “chance” sequence of events over billions of years – we are here according to divine plan. Humans are not simply the most intelligent of millions of species – we were created to preside over the earth and everything within it. To conservatives, evolution undermines faith – plain and simple.
The bottom line is that science opposes the conservative Christian world view – and that of my friend’s – in multiple and significant ways.
When this happens, a serious case of cognitive dissonance tends to set in. The two opposing ideas of science and religion simply cannot occupy the same space so the brain attempts to solve the problem. Unfortunately, science often loses to faith because the latter is such a hugely emotional thing (it’s tough for a scientific explanation to compete with the promise of eternal life).
One of the tricks the mind plays on itself to support its emotional choice is confirmation bias – it finds support for its viewpoint, while ignoring or downplaying contrary information. Remember my colleague’s reliance on outdated information and unqualified climate science “experts”? Yup, a perfect example.
Like millions of other conservative Christians, my friend has solved his dissonance by rejecting science.
The irony for the conservative faithful, is that they live in a society that is utterly dependent on science for virtually every aspect of the the lifestyle we’re accustomed to in 21st century North America. I imagine this irony is not entirely lost on them, and it must be difficult to keep the cognitive dissonance at bay. After all, they would find their views in opposition not only with secularists, but also with most other Christians.
I’m not interested in destroying anyone’s faith but, as a humanist, I also do not want anyone to suffer. Therefore, if you are a person who’s troubled by the collision between your faith and science, my advice to you is this…
You don’t necessarily have to abandon your belief in God to accept what science has to offer. All you have to do is adjust your faith. Not every Christian believes every word of their faith so why should you? It’s worth mentioning that there are many varieties of Christian faith that do not clash violently with science. It’s also worth mentioning that the Christian faith has been evolving for over 2000 years, so any adjustment you might make to your faith would be done in good company.
Hiding in Plain Sight
I’ve had a few friends find this place, expressing surprise that I’m an atheist and that I’m “secretly” blogging about it. It got me thinking there may be others who’ve been lurking here and wondering about the same things.
For the answer to the first question, I’d ask you to read the “about” stuff in the top menu of this blog. With respect to the second question, the blog is really not secret at all. From the beginning, I’ve linked to it from all my other internet haunts. Hell, I even link to it from my Facebook profile.
On the other hand, I’ve never promoted or discussed this place with any non-atheist/agnostic friends either. I’m no missionary and am not one to drag people in here to read my ramblings – especially if I know they are the believing type. I guess I’ve seen enough evangelism to know it’s something I’d rather not take part in.
Then why write about atheism? Well, first, because even though Canadians are pretty low-key about religion, it’s still pretty pervasive in our society. Ask any atheist and they’ll probably tell you there’s a lot of god talk out there – god talk that often spills into our public institutions and law (e.g. google ‘Bill 44 Alberta’). That sort of thing creates a need for a place where I can analyze the atheistic/religious world around me and maybe blow off a little steam. It also helps me to meet like-minded people and talk about things. In other words, I blog to help me keep my sanity and deal with the isolation I often feel from being part of a minority.
Oh, there’s one more reason I blog here – to help people. Specifically, to help people who are struggling with their faith – those looking for a safe place to ask the questions they may be afraid to ask elsewhere. Doubting Christians who arrive on this doorstep are treated gently because I know how hard it is for them to even begin questioning their faith.
If you choose to hang around this place, be warned that I speak my mind here. There will be days when you might like what I have to say, days when you will not like what I have to say, and days when you would rather not have stopped by.
So, while I understand you may be surprised or even shocked to read what I have to say here, I will make no apologies. You can accept that …or not – it’s your choice.
Oh, before I forget, WELCOME.
Peace, out!
—
(Edit: I’ve decided to just get it all over with and posted a link to this post on Facebook)
Does Majesty & Wonder Have To Come From A Creator?
I was in the mood last night for space stuff so I popped In the Shadow of the Moon into the DVD player. The film is a wonderful documentary (directed by Ron Howard) of the US moon landings. It begins, appropriately enough, at the beginning with John F. Kennedy’s bold challenge, and ends with the landings made by Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and a few lesser known successors.
You can view the entire film in 10 minute segments on youtube but, before you do, I’d like to call your attention to the final segment where some of the astronauts share how their journeys changed them. The segment starts with Eugene Cernan and Charlie Duke describing their feelings of wonder, and how those feelings convinced them of God’s existence (Duke actually became a born-again Christian not long after).
Being a fairly recent (2 year) de-conversion to atheism, I can relate to these men. I’ve shared similar experiences of wonder and majesty – most notably while hiking in the mountains, or going for 10+ mile runs (runner’s high’ll get ya every time). And, yes, two years ago, I too would have given credit to god for those wonderful feelings.
However, since the de-conversion, the source of those feelings has changed, and I’ve become more and more fascinated with the seemingly universal tendency for us to attribute these emotions to a god or creator.
Why is this so?
Some think it’s connected to our affinity toward anthropomorphizing – attributing human qualities to things that are not. In this case, humans create things, so we assume that the universe must also have been created by something human-like, only much more powerful.
Scientists who study the brain may tell you that our willingness to invoke god is connected to our ability to identify patterns. In this case, the pattern is that most everything we observe has a cause, and we extend that pattern to the assumption that the universe must also have a cause.
But is this correct thinking? Just because we see cause and effect around us, does that mean the same rule applied to the formation of the universe? If a god can simply exist, then why can’t a universe? Also, could the Big Bang have been preceded by a Big Crunch, and that crunch have been preceded by a different Big Bang? Might this process be cycling on eon after eon after eon?
And, even if the universe did have an external cause, why would that cause need to be an intelligence or a god? Might it just as easily be another universe, as multi-universe theory proposes?
And then there’s the fact that most of us were raised by parents who told us that God created everything, and many of us grew up in churches where everyone agreed the universe was created by God. How many of those people really examine these claims from authority? After all, all those smart people couldn’t be wrong – could they?
I wonder, if parents stopped teaching this idea to their children, how would it take long before our sense of wonder aimed itself at the natural world instead of some unknown, undetectable entity?
There is a world of science awaiting those who would ask these questions. There is a world of wonder awaiting those willing to entertain the idea that maybe, God didn’t do it. And, in my opinion, the fact that our universe came to be without a deity makes it even more wondrous and majestic.
Oprah Dashes the Hopes of Atheists Everywhere
Ok, a slight exaggeration but watching the video below was, quite frankly, maddening.
It’s the part where she says, “Maybe you believe and you don’t know you believe” which translates to me as “I can’t conceive that you really don’t believe in God, therefore, you must be in denial – you really believe – you just don’t know it”.
Oprah, you’ve just insulted a large number of atheists but, just in case you don’t know why your words are insulting, replace “God” with “Xenu” and pretend you are the one being interviewed.
Got it?
Vacation Book #1: On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin
Well, a year after purchasing it, I finally finished On the Origin of Species. It was quite the read – all 650 Victorian Era pages worth.
Although Darwin’s writing style was a lot more accessible than I expected, it was still a bit dry in places. That said, there were multiple rewards for my perseverance. Darwin did not disappoint – I was, in many places throughout the book, inspired in unexpected ways. For anyone interested in evolution, it really is a must-read. How could it not be? After all, it set the stage for the study of life on earth for the next 150 years (and counting)!
The Origin of Species was as much science as it was prophecy of the science that would follow it. Its author had an amazing grasp of was to come following the introduction of his dangerous idea to the world. While his excitement at the prospects of future discoveries was palpable, I imagine if he would have lived to see future discoveries (e.g. in the field of genetics) he would have calmly said, “Well, of course. Natural Selection would have it no other way”.
Another thing I was struck by was Darwin’s knowledge of so many varied fields of science. Not only was he eminently learned in his chosen field of biology, but his mind seemed absolutely brimming with knowledge about geology, paleontology, physics and more. He was a master at connecting the dots between various fields of science.
Upon reading Darwin, you come to really understand how badly he’s been misunderstood and misconstrued – especially by the creationist/intelligent design movement. Darwin himself was all-to aware of this unfortunate reality, and spent considerable time addressing it. In reading the book, you get a good sense of why it took him so long to finish it – he’d obviously spent a great deal of time debating both creationists and old-thinking naturalists, and wanted to do his best to address the objections he’d heard on what I’m sure were countless occasions.
The book makes it clear that Darwin was accustomed to seeing his words and work misrepresented. However, in the face of that, he was still an optimist:
Great is the power of steady misrepresentation; but the history of science shows that fortunately this power does not long endure.
The most famous misrepresentation is probably this quote:
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.
Creationists – to this day – insist on quoting the first paragraph whilst conveniently leaving out the second. The result is to portray a Darwin who is seemingly dumbfounded by the complexity in nature. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Darwin, and his theory illuminated our understanding of the diversity of life on earth.
And that’s why it’s a must-read – because, even today, The Origin of Species is a candle in the dark. I, for one, am committed to passing on the flame.
Dear Imaginary God: Fuck You & The Imaginary White Horse You Are Supposed to Ride In On
I’m not the swearing type but I figure if you’re gonna do something, you ought to do it right (fyi for those who don’t know, it’s Blasphemy Day).
A Letter to a Friend: Evidence for Evolution
Hi Friend,
I thought I’d follow-up on our disagreement about evolution. Before I go further, I thought I’d confirm what I think you said so I don’t put words into your mouth:
- Evolution has been dis-proven.
- Many scientists say that evolution has many holes in it and that it has not held up to scientific scrutiny.
- There are not enough fossils to demonstrate sufficient evidence for human evolution. You asked me to show you that fossils exist in museums.
Please let me know if I got any of that wrong because I used your comments as the basis for my research (if necessary, I’ll revise my research when I get back from my trip).
My claim is that evolution explains the earth’s diversity of life, as well as the evolution of human beings on earth. Furthermore, I claim that there is substantial evidence for those two claims. With that in mind, below is some support I found for my claims. The information is in the links, but I provided a few teaser quotes or tid-bits of information beside a few of them.
—
Level of Support for Evolution: Quote: “…in the scientific community there is essentially universal agreement that the evidence of evolution is overwhelming, and the scientific consensus supporting the modern evolutionary synthesis is nearly absolute…”
Objections to Evolution: Quote: “When Charles Darwin published his 1859 book On the Origin of Species, his theory of evolution by natural selection initially met opposition from alternate scientific theories, but came to be universally accepted by the scientific community.[2] The observation, or fact, of evolutionary processes occurring, as well as the current theory explaining that fact, have been uncontroversial among biologists for nearly a century.”
Scientific Dissent from Darwinism + the Rebuttals to those Dissents. I’m not sure about you, but I find the rebuttals to be pretty convincing.
Project Steve on Wikipedia and on its own site. Project Steve is a tongue-in-cheek response to the claim that many scientists oppose evolution. The point that Project Steve makes is that – even if the anti-evolutionist scientists were in the hundreds, that is a minute number compared to the many, many thousands who do accept evolution. The project lists over 1100 scientists named ‘Steve” who accept the theory. And that doesn’t even get into the discussion of which group of scientists have the credentials needed to assess the evidence (covered in the “dissent” link above).
Now that I’ve presented information supporting evolution as an almost universally accepted theory in the scientific community, let’s move onto your points about evidence and fossils.
Here is a list of human evolution fossils: Note that the article states there are thousands of fossils and that it outlines the progression from early mammals, to primates, to hominids (the family Homo Sapiens emerged from).
The Human Origins Exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History – I don’t know if you can find a museum of higher standing.
Another place of high regard is the Museum of Science – the link contains a database of fossils
The Smithsonian Institute is arguably one of the highest regarded museums in the world. It has many, many fossils and an amazing exhibit (online and in-person versions). Suffice to say, the Smithsonian also accepts evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life on earth.
A couple of very good university resources are the ones found at the University of California and Minnesota State University (there are lots of others).
PZ Meyers is a respected evolutionary biologist and university professor. This post contains a large number of links pointing to an immense body of evolutionary evidence.
A couple of great websites with information about evolution are Talk Origins and Panda’s Thumb.
Finally, there are tons of books written by highly respected scientists on the subject of evolution. The Smithsonian Instititute Guide to Human Origins is one I read over a year ago that I highly recommend.
I’m no expert but I think I can discern between an expert and a non-expert and that’s what I am basing my argument on – that the sources I am citing are numerous and respected within the scientific community.
I am not sure what sources you refer to when you say you know of many scientists who have proven evolution not to be valid. Therefore, I can’t pretend to judge if they are good, well-respected scientists.
Welcome Stumblers!
I see from my stat logs that I’m getting lots of visits from Stumbleupon. Thanks for stopping by – I hope you find my blog worthy of your thumbs up!
The Secularization of Quebec
Have you ever thought it might be nice to move to a less religious part of the world? If so, you might have thought you’d have to go all the way to Scandinavia. Well, you’d be wrong.
Starting in the early 1960’s, the province of Quebec, Canada went through a Quiet Revolution – a revolution that’s resulted in an increasingly secular society. Link
Compared to the US, most of Canada is a relative haven for non-believers. A recent survey shows that one in four Canadians do not believe in god, but Quebec is leading the way with huge declines in church attendance. Things have gotten so bad there (or, good depending on how you look at it!) that churches are being sold to the lowest bidder.
And it appears that Quebec isn’t done sticking nails in the coffin of religion.
So, the next time you think it might be nice to get a change of scenery, think of Quebec …just make sure you brush up on your French.
-
Blogroll
- About Atheism & Agnosticism I’m not a big fan of about.com but the site’s atheism writer – August Cline – is excellent
- Atheist Revolution by vjack – an unbelievably prolific writer on the subject of atheism
- Attempts At Rational Behavior A godless liberal who firmly believes in the separation of church and state.
- Friendly Atheist warmth and wisdom from the guy who sold his soul on eBay
- Pharyngula by PZ Meyers
-
Communities & Social Bookmarking
- Advocacy & Activism
-
Video Favorites
- Atheist a simply made video with an incredibly inspiring message
- Pat Condell’s Youtube Channel is Atheism on the offensive (controversial, funny & brilliant)
- Potholer54’s Youtube Channel home of the amazing “Made Easy” series (evolution & natural selection, the scientific method, and history of the universe etc)
- Why Do People Laugh at Creationists? is an excellent 24 part Youtube video series by Thunderfoot
-
The Four Horsemen
- Christopher Hitchens is the author of “God is Not Great”
- Daniel Dennet is the author of “Breaking the Spell”
- Richard Dawkins is the author of “The God Delusion”, “The Blind Watchmaker” & more
- Sam Harris is the author of “The End of Faith” & “Letter to a Christian Nation”
-
Morals, Values, World Views
- Ethic of Reciprocity “The Golden Rule” is one of things that guides my life
- One Source of Morality might be from our feelings of empathy
- Secular Humanism check out the Council of Secular Humanism affirmations and declarations
- Secular Humanism on Wikipedia atheism is what I don’t believe & secular humanism is, more or less, what I do
-
My Purpose Here
I'm here to help doubting Christians let go of their fear and guilt, to provide an example of an atheist leading a happy, moral and fulfilling life, and to connect with like-minded non-believers. Welcome!
-
Subscribe & Bookmark
Recent Posts
Recent Comments:
- Ben: Good to have you back, Mark! Keep up the great work, I love your insights.
- Julie: Glad to hear it
- Alexis Mullino: I’m glad to see more folks on Goodreads. I sent you a friend request....
- Tegan: Just stumbled here….love the blog. Good to see a serious athiest blog (though...
- Samuel Kenyon: I wanted to get it last fall, but I had to wait until last month to get my...
On Youtube
Book Recommendations
- Letter to a Christian Nation - by Sam Harris
- Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible & Why - by Bart Ehrman
- The God Delusion - by Richard Dawkins
