For Accommodationism

There is a current amongst the atheist blogs I read regarding accommodationist vs. confrontationalist stances. This is my argument for accommodationism as the superior position of the two.

Confrontationalism lacks any credible epistemic basis to discredit religion at large, and this is, from what I can tell, what it tries to do. If it does not do this, then the following is incorrect. When I say religion at large, I mean all the predominant religious positions within culture today. We'll say Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, and Hinduism. Further, it lacks the moral basis to discredit religion at large. These are the two main issues brought against religion by confrontational atheists. I think that these positions are the product of arguing against weak positions, positions I also stand against, but when generalized to all religions then atheism is making too dogmatic a claim. At that point we're talking politics. If politics, then there are more important issues than atheism to discuss, like war, class, capitalism, genocide, health care, gay rights, science education, and so on. Further, there are religious allies to these political causes, and so if politics, then accommodationism is better for supporting these political points, as well as building a healthy pluralistic environment.


On epistemology: The central claim here is that religions are false. The basis that religions are evaluated to be false are scientific claims. However, there exist scientists who are religious. To relegate these scientists to the special, no-counter example corner of "Their beliefs are contradictory" is to play the no true Scotsman card. As such, I have good reason to believe that science does not prove religion false.

To know and to believe are two separate things. To know something requires an argument, whether it be a "negative claim" or not. On "Negatives":I can prove a negative, such as the square root of 2 is not rational. Negatives can be proven via the modus tollens inference, or the proof by contradiction. In fact, the often used problem of evil builds itself on the proof by contradiction. However, I don't think the problem of evil works to prove that God does not exist, but only that God is not in this exact way that some rationalist theists thought he was. But, for the major world religions, you didn't need such a proof by contradiction -- God's nature is explicated in far greater detail within the religious tracts than some simple, vague Three-O reference.

Lastly, there is an emphasis on evidence based claims. Why, and what does it even mean? If all we mean is, "Well, it's nice to have data", then I have no problem. If what we mean is ,"the existence of pH meters proves that God does not exist", then I'm claiming that this is a little senseless. The whole "evidence based claims" meme sounds great as a talking point, works fine against creationism, but could really do with a little more ground work to support it.


On moral claims: Atheists are personally moral, as are many theists. To point to the Catholic abuses of children, the crusades, and so on doesn't say anything. You need to show that religion is the causal culprit. Without a causal argument one must admit that atheism leads to mass murder, as the USSR performed mass murder. Clearly no one in the atheist community believes this, so one should admit that the correlation between theism and child molestation doesn't follow causally.

Further, if the atheists lack an epistemic basis to claim that religion is false, and continue to claim that religion is false for epistemic reasons, then the atheists are loosing moral credibility with respect to truth-claims in that they are demonstrating an inability to self-reflect, which is an important part of moral deliberation.


As neither epistemic or moral claims counter religion as a whole very well, we should get down to the brass tacks of politics. Accommodationism is a superior politic to confrontationalism because it's more honest about our epistemic certainty, it allows bridges to be built between the atheist community and theist communities who are friendly towards the same political end goals, such as gay rights and science education, and it plays a better PR role. In fact, accommodationism is the correct position, not the weak and scared position that's too afraid to "say anything". Accommodationists are skeptical of strong negative claims, and find things outside of metaphysical speculation, such as science education vs. thoughts on the existence of god, to be more important. As the confrontationlists have said, let us not mince words. Religion, at large, can stand on its own two feet, and atheists don't have a good basis to claim that it doesn't do so in its entirety. The confrontationalist position is poorly thought out, lacks self reflection, and the conclusions it purports to prove are simply wrong if it's swinging its rhetoric at religion as a whole. As such, accommodationism is the only position that is epistemically and morally worthwhile, whether or not confrontationalists are angry about this fact or not. While there are some religions that deserve scorn and derision, the claim that all major religions are false is simply an unsupported belief.

Atheism: A Basis

A recent theme that has re-emerged in my life, mostly due to the holidays, has been the philosophic basis for atheism.

Skipping definitions and relying upon common uses for words, the standard question I receive is, "Why don't you believe in God?" As I use the big A word as opposed to the little A word, the question is more earnest, if rarely an attack. The simplest reply that doesn't ruffle feathers is, "I don't have a reason to do so"

But this isn't the entire reason for my atheism. Within my life the God hypothesis has been "falsified", in any sense of the word that this can be meaningful. This isn't to say that God can't be, as clearly falsification isn't the end-all and be-all of enquiry (Or even scientific enquiry). This is only to say that I have always been interested in theology, have prayed, have meditated, have read holy books, have attended several services, and have even had experiences that mirror what others describe as God. If all that one means by "God" is "A feeling of warmth one may experience when at calm or in a particularly beautiful or sublime aesthetic experience which helps guide one to a moral walk in life, albeit confusedly" then sure -- I'm a theist. I felt this long ago in acting, in having sex, in looking at works of art, in philosophy, in science, and so on.

The problem I tend to encounter within countering atheists as well as in speaking with theists is a singular assumption that atheism implies material reductionism: Physics and Determinism are the basis of all reality, and those namby-pamby feelings are merely illusions to which you are a slave to!But are they?What exactly is meant by "Real"? What does this word connote, denote, mean, and why is the scientific description of the world MORE real than, say, a person’s theological standpoint? Does "Reality" admit of degrees? Is the one "noumenally Real", and the other merely "Phenomonon"? I certainly do not think this is the case. Further, on the basis of "Occam's Razor" no dualisms are permittable (though I have other reasons to stand against dualism). If an atheist rejects Occam's razor, but is still a material reductionist, that would be a person whom I'd be interested in having a discussion with. The first question in this paragraph will be my starting point for arguing contra material reductionism.


So, why atheism? While theism can mean many, many, many things, and I'm certainly open to this sort of a discussion, theism, within America, still has a very simplistic basis that has a very strong influence on American culture. To those theists that find the atheists out of bounds: I encourage you to speak. You should be more offended by this simplistic theism that is easily refuted, thereby inspiring the hubris of atheists, than atheists are -- yet it is the atheists who are speaking.

What do I mean by simplistic theism? A theism unconsidered, that uses an elementary notion of faith as a shield against questioning. A theism whose only recourse to scientific argument is to reference the infallibility of the Bible. A theism that is tied to Republican politics (as opposed to a theist who is also a Republican). A theism that can't find a love in their heart for homosexuality. A theism that claims to know God. These are simplistic theisms, and in comparison to the high-and-mighty self proclaimed horse of the atheists, the atheist position, while not merely negative and thereby in need of argumentation, comes across as stronger.

As for my argument: I don't think God is either non-falsifiable or incomprehensible, in the same way that I don't think that matter is incomprehensible or non-falsifiable. What I do think, however, is that arguments for God tend to put the cart before the horse -- they are decided beforehand. Now, this can mean one of two things, as far as I can tell: One, God is simply a metaphor for understanding the world, an interpretive lens that provides categories through which one may communicate on a pragmatic basis with other believers, or interpret certain contexts such as morality and judgment to pragmatic ends. Two: God is a presupposition which one believes in not by choice, but is "triggered" by background, environment, and personal characteristics. I find neither condition blameworthy, mutually exclusive, nor does either actually negate the possibility of the standard metaphysical God. But such descriptions of theism and God are the reasons why I am an atheist. Theistic culture, from my perspective, confusedly shifts the referent of God from the culture and values themselves to a grand metaphysical system of rewards and punishment that has, in my interpretation, immoral implications. If there were no metaphysical construct giving these moral precepts an infallibility, then there may be room for discourse to change them in light of new contexts. But there is no such device within the theism which influences a large number of Americans.

Epistemically, I have no argument contra theism. I have no problem with hinge propositions. However, with Kant, I argue that God is implicated by morality -- yet the morality of our modern Gods is immoral, and I refuse to consent to such a Kingdom of Ends. Ergo, I am not a mere epistemic agnostic; though epistemically I have qualms here and there with the atheists, to me ethics is a stronger compulsion for acting than epistemology. As far as I can tell, to make an argument from an internal perspective, the first commandment has been broken: other Gods have been placed before God -- God, the symbol, for the culture of men. And so Atheism, not as a simple pondering of the Problem of Evil (which, if one accepts God, I don't think is a problem; Leibniz's Best of All Possible Worlds and all that razzle-dazzle), is a moral choice against a deeply Christian nation. I have no desire to abolish all of God, though I don't believe in him. But I certainly wish to negate those who use what could be a beautiful concept for some towards alienating homosexuality, promoting patriarchy and militarism, creating an Other in Islam, supporting Capitalism, and generally promoting right-wing politics. And, as things sit, a large enough number of theists make the atheist camp more worthwhile.


Additionally, I just find sleeping in on Sunday and premarital sex to be more holy than falling asleep on a hard wooden pew and lying about not having premarital sex.

Skepticon III

I just arrived back from Skepticon III to my small abode and I am exhausted. This was three days of skepticism, atheism, science, feminism, gay rights, sexuality, late night conversations, and reference-trading [I love references]. Talk about a fantastic venue. (It's also free due to the work of a lot of cool volunteers that I'd like to thank)

Perhaps my favorite aspect of these events is what seemed to be a large cross-over between the afformentioned groups: Feminism, LGBT rights, and general strong stance against right-wing religious movements. I hope these political trends continue to be introduced. It would be great to unify a sort of left-political force within the United States that aren't as blatantly not-left as the Democratic Party. Though I doubt everyone will agree with my particular politics, I'm tired of two blatantly bourgeois options.

Of those who spoke my favorite to listen to was PZ Myers. I like science things, and I thought his poker game analogy for evolution was a wonderful tool that I'm going to shamelessly steal.


Again, while this may not reach those organizers, thanks

An epistemic reason for religious tolerance

Yesterday evening just before I left campus I received a phone call from the local LDS representative assigned to myself by the church. My father always forwards my address when I move because he cares about my eternal salvation. It makes sense when you consider his perspective, and usually I don't really mind the occasional visit from those who love God because I find the conversations fun. However, last night was not the best night for myself. I tried to intimate that, but he offered tonight, so I was all "Yeah, sure, come over, whatever" Being somewhat on edge due to a busy schedule, and not really feeling like putting up with the fellow, I decided to pour myself a double before he came over. Unlike other times when he'd come over to share the word, where I would attempt to politely but firmly point out my objections, I was not quite so polite this time around. There's a sense in which I feel bad about this, 'cause the guy's an old retired man, and really, of all the times in a person's life this might be the worst time to start edging in on their religion, God, and all that. They lived the life, they might as well receive some sort of comfort compensation when coming near the end of it. So, hey, I can't say I'm proud of it. But I did come up with an interesting insight from the conversation none-the-less (This is probably the least inflammatory comment, which just goes to show me that polemics are better comedy than philosophy).

Of those religions that I am familiar with, and seem to be wildly popular (Christianity, Judaism, Islam), all of them claim that God is in some way infinite. There are interesting philosophical developments in the understanding and concept of God, and some theologians come-with, but when approaching the usual basics of these religions (and I fully admit here that I'm at a loss when it comes to "Eastern" traditions), and the beliefs of what seems to be canon to these religions, God possesses infinite properties (to some, within the scopes of logic, to others, not so, and so much the worse for logic).


Additionally, from what I have seen within these religions, it seems that man's finitude, at the least as a moral being, is central to their system of understanding the world. Yet, despite this finitude, these religions will often have claims wherein this religion is the true religion amongst religions. While this is a common objection amongst non-believers (adopting, at least temporarily, intersubjective agreement as truth), what I did not realize before was the contrast between the infinitude of God, the finitude of man, and how this directly contradicts any religion's claim to the one true path to God. It is not that, granting God, we can't understand a segment of God or experience the divine. It's that many people make this claim of perfect or nearer-perfect knowledge of God, and yet the doctrine of God's infinitude and man's finitude necessarily leads one to conclude that man can't understand God, as he can't understand the infinite. As such, one ought to conclude that one's religion is but a path to the divine, something that a given individual thinks is correct, but is itself not the best, or at the very least possibly not the best, description of God and his will. To think so is to adopt a religious chauvinism that abuses God for one's religion when one is supposed to instead revere him; clearly, a contradiction. It is for this reason that we should reject faiths that proclaim themselves True.

Choosing a Method

Every field has a methodology. Adhering to a methodology may seem the best way of retaining objectivity, but last night I found experienced methodologies, arriving at valid conclusions within the reference frame of their method, that conflicted. This was the result of a philosophical discussion after watching a debate on whether or not the resurrection of Jesus is true. Now, the conflict is not irreconcilable on either side -- both sides could explain the other in their own terms -- so there wasn't a want of consistency on either party. But there was a lack of a definitive answer, as is often the case in philosophical questions.

Though this is not, by necessity, a philosophical question. The answer can require a philosophical method, but it does not necessitate it. The Pro side used a historical method. I can't meaningfully comment on the historical method, but I can say that it seeemed the Pro side should be treated as an expert. The argument, to my philosophical knowledge, was valid. The case that his argument failed, and I knew that it failed, was in my knowledge of the scientific method. Resurrection, to the best of our knowledge, is highly unlikely to be possible. The best inference, at this point, is to conclude that Resurrection can not happen. Naturally this doesn't mean that it can't happen. But I would also point out that nothing has brought us closer to knowledge than the method of science. However, in the case of historical details, that remains problematic -- thereby the need for a historical method.

I would place the scientific method above the historical method in its ability to ascertain the truth due to my experience with the method. But, supposing that your world-view allowed resurrection, and you apply the historical method, everything seemed to fall well into place. So, in some sense, the debate becomes an argument of metaphysics -- hardly the appropriate place for truth-determination.

So, in what way does one choose a method? The whole point of creating method is to become as objective as possible. Yet there is a multiplicity of methods. While, normally, the choice of method is obvious (Are you investigating the world? (science) Are you investigating the past? (history) Are you investigating wisdom? (philosophy).), there can come a point where two individuals can come to an impasse on some questions, such as the resurrection example, and both think their method is the most objective way to truth, yet come to different conclusions. I believe that both debaters were making good-faith efforts for their position, as opposed to playing polemics to "win", so I don't think an ego-driven hypothesis resolves the question. Surely anyone interested in proper conclusions can admit that they don't want the ranking of methods to be dictated by how comforting we find their conclusions, or how well they justify everything we already believe -- that would entirely defeat the point of method! 

How do you rank methods, and why?

Skepticon II

For the longest time I found the notion of an atheist movement to be odd. While I have been an atheist for a long time now, I thought people found meaning in religion, and it didn't seem like to nicest thing in the world to go around removing people's meaning. Further, it seemed odd to form organizations around the idea that God Is Dead. I wasn't always as certain of this as I am now, but I figured that anyone who bothered to actually continue looking for truth would at least be able to rationalize one way or the other, and while I was sure that Atheism was the right conclusion, at least theism offered a structure for individuals to tackle moral problems.

I no longer feel this way. At least entirely. I still don't feel terribly great about poking holes in people's beliefs, but there are good reasons to believe things and bad reasons to believe things. Further, while I am intrigued in continuing the philosophical debate on the existence and nature of God, as well as everything that might entail, I am certain now that a movement for atheists is a good thing. I was convinced of this by Skepticon II.

The main problem, as I hinted to above, that I had with the New Atheists was that I perceived it as a destructive movement as opposed to a generative movement. I knew that God did not equate to goodness, and took offense when someone thought I couldn't be good because I didn't believe in God, but it seemed supremely silly to me to gather together to destroy the beliefs of others. Quite simply, this isn't the case. If Skepticon II is a good sampling of what the New Atheism has to offer, then while I disagreed with individual's that spoke there, that was a common theme amongst many people. And my impression was that this sort of disagreement and debate was encouraged. This means that, while we all agree on the non-existence of God, there are still questions and problems that we all still have and disagree on.

So, while it seems that Atheism would be destructive, it was the exact opposite: It was generative to the point that everyone had a point of contention with something which was a widely positive experience to myself -- especially because everyone there never once listed "The Bible" as a good reason to do something.

Further, while I have a group of atheist friends that I generally hang around, I'm a fairly quiet and complacent fellow who doesn't speak out to many people. While I enjoy and very greatly value this group of friends, it was also fun just to hang around people who are relatively similar to myself in their general metaphysical world view and to feel that I wasn't fundamentally alone. There was a community of people who wanted to bullshit about science, literature, music, politics, teaching, philosophy, alcoholic drinks, often all in the same conversation. This was something else that wasn't stated explicitly, but that seemed I noticed: The New Atheism is an intellectual movement. The speakers all had an intellectual discipline, and they shared their specialty in their speeches -- something I highly enjoyed. I especially enjoyed seeing science being shared glibly with anyone who chose to show up. Further, the science was embraced by those who attended (at least, those whom I talked to). It was not shunned as some hum-drum boring routine you have to go through in order to pass a class. (Sorry for the minor bias towards the science, but it is what I study. I also enjoyed the philosophers and historians, as well as the debate on the existence of God)

So, it is a generative movement, and it is a movement that actually values intellectual labor (something desperately lacking in my experience). Further, it's filled with enthusiastic individuals who enjoy finding like-minded people (which, really, who doesn't?). I find that hard to object to. Thank you to all who set it up and all the speakers who came.