[0]Welcome, welcome, one and all to the 64th edition of the blog carnival for infidels and heathens everywhere, Carnival of the Godless [1]! As per usual, we have a bumper crop of posts covering a large array of topics so let's not waste time and get this show on the road.

[1]Blog Against Theocracy Redux
First up, I want to revisit a little internet activism I was recently involved in, the first ever Blog Against Theocracy [2] which was held just this past Easter weekend. The purpose of Blog Against Theocracy was to simply get as many bloggers writing about the importance of separation of church and state as possible. What made Blog Against Theocracy unique though was that it was a collaborative effort by both theists and atheists alike. In fact, BAT was the brainchild of blogger and Harvard Div. graduate Blue Gal [3] who was on a mission from god (she didn't say which one) to get believers and nonbelievers talking and working against our common enemy. After all, separation of church and state benefits us all and as much as we atheists often feel like we're cannon fodder in the culture wars, there are a large number of believers out there on the frontlines with us. And to that end the first Blog Against Theocracy (or the "hit-job on Easter" as one right-winger termed it) was a rousing success.

So it was no surprise that a good number of today's submissions came from atheist bloggers participating in BAT. Austin Cline treated us to an insightful look at Christian Nationalism [4] and its' parallels to fascism. Josh Wood at Half Nixon [5] shows how Martin Luther's ideas have influenced modern American Christianity (or at least certain segments of it) and how this translates into the very type of agenda Austin warns us about. Meanwhile, Steppen Wolf at The Skeptical Alchemist [6] presents us with a global perspective and examines how theocracy has been advanced in Italy. Next we have a post by Akusai at Action Skeptics that was a little too late for Blog Against Theocracy which is a bit of a shame, but I'm glad to have it here. Theocracy doesn't usually occur in a revolutionary overthrow of an existing secularist government. Instead it creeps and insinuates itself into society little by little until it's too late to take action; at first theocracy is often writ small [7].

Which kind of leads us to another post that wasn't included in Blog Against Theocracy^*, Ed Brayton's post at Dispatches From The Culture Wars. Ed's no slouch and has battled the ID/Creationist crowd for years as one of the co-founders of The Panda's Thumb [8] and Michigan Citizens For Science [9], but he took issue with our overly broad interpretation of theocracy. It's too bad Ed didn't send this in for BAT because I think he has some very thoughtful points to make about being careful to be specific in our use of terms like theocracy [10]. Personally I can understand where Ed is coming from on this as it was something I struggled with as well. I think my position is best summed up by something Ed wrote in comments to his post:

"No one, least of all me, is suggesting that we not take seriously the agenda of the religious right. After all, that is what I spend most of my time and effort on here. I am only suggesting that we not allow that battle to obscure relevant distinctions. The problem is that we may well do to 'theocracy' what has already been done by the right to words like 'liberal' or 'pagan' or 'Darwinist' - turn them into nothing more than a buzzword that means "whatever we hate." I don't think we should be emulating the worst traits of our opponents here. We can, indeed must, fight against those things we all agree on; we don't need to engage in the same sort of sloganeering that we object to when applied to us in order to do that."

And that's precisely why calling our blog swarm Blog Against Theocracy bothered me. Yet I still thought it important to support and participate in BAT. I wish I could say I've resolved my dilemma by now but I can't. I do however think the problem that both Ed and I had with the naming of BAT solidly relates to the debate that raged across the science blogosphere fueled by Chris Mooney and Matt Nisbet's recent article in Science on framing. Bora over at A Blog Around The Clock [11] has an excellent extended discussion that summarizes and expands on the debate. I think what Ed and I were reacting to were the potential long term consequences of diluting the term 'theocracy', as well as maintaining the sort of rigor that concerns scientists.

But I think I have to agree with Bora on this. We're not really trying to reach other scientists, academics or others predisposed to our position. We're not even really trying to educate. We're trying to evoke an emotional reaction in the disinterested that sways them to our side. Until we can do that there's no amount of education in the world that's going to reach them. And to that end I think Blog Against Theocracy was aptly named. Theocracy is a very strong word and all but the farthest religious right are resolutely predisposed against it. I'm not entirely won over that this tactic works, and I'm very much hesitant about the long-term consequences of using it, but right here and right now I think it's the best we have.

Last but not least I want to include one more post that while not appearing in Blog Against Theocracy I wish it could have. David Johnson at The Jesus Myth writes to inform us on the very surreal consequences [12] the Work Place Religious Freedom Act might have if enacted into law. This is blog activism at its' finest. David's post both shows how a proposed piece of legislation relates to us at a personal level and makes a call to action. As David says, "Get involved in your local politics. The religious-right is and if you don't, their voice will be the only ones heard."

[12]Cartoon by DC SimpsonTake my god, please!
Never let it be said that the godless are also humorless because nothing could be further from the truth. While a popular perception of atheists is that we're all overly-serious dour grumps the reality is we've learned that humor can be a very potent tool. It helps relieve the strain many of us feel living in a world that oftentimes seems to have gone mad with nearly everyone around us posessing firm beliefs that are so plainly nothing but myths to us. Furthermore it can help to illuminate the hypocrisy and absurdity that accompanies religion so much of the time. Thus it's no surprise to find a number of submissions to this bi-week's Carnival of the Godless looking to the lighter side and after my lengthy BAT Redux you could probably use a bit of a break.

Starting off this portion of the carnival, Stewart P. e-mailed me to pass along a piece that tickled his funny bone at As A Dodo [13] recounting the recent U.K. naval hostage crisis as a Easter story. Thanks Stewart! Brandon Peele from Generative Transformation pokes a very sharp stick at the method many believers use to arrive at their beliefs in his examination of Spiritual Autolysis [14]. Mark A. Rayner at The Skwib gifts us with a brief exposition on a very odd order of satirical nuns [15]. And rounding out this bi-week's funnies, Grrlscientist from Living The Scientific Life shows us one of her favorite clips [16] from a show that has been religiously making fun of the religiously insane since its' beginning.

[16]The Quantum Physics of GenesisReligion and Science
While religion and science might mix like oil and water, I think it's crucial that we subject religion and religious beliefs to scientific scrutiny despite the fact this may make some of our friends who are believers uncomfortable. At the very least we must show where religious beliefs differ from currently accepted scienctific opinion in the hope that the wisdom of basing policy on science rather than mere belief can be demonstrated. Heading off this section we have a post by Jeremy Bruno from The Voltage Gate positively skewering Cardinal George Pell's nonsensical notions [17] about climate change. Following hot on Jeremy's heels, cfeagans at Hot Cup of Joe convincingly shows using archaeology how one of the most treasured Bible stories, that of the exodus of the Israelites, is just that and no more -- a story [18]. Polishing off our scientific examination of religion, Greg Laden makes the point that even if we don't believe a single word of The Bible we can still use it to gain useful knowledge about our culture as he examines The Bible as Ethnography [19].

[19]What Would Dawkins Do?: Certainly not keep his mouth shutCritical Thinking
Perhaps the first and foremost criticism one can make of religion and religious beliefs is that they should not be above criticism just because a large number of people believe them. And as always the current crop of submissions does not disappoint in offering up a healthy dose of criticism. Leading the pack is No More Mr. Nice Guy! who responds to E.J. Dionne [20]'s weak condemnation of vocal atheists speaking their minds with the proposition that it's precisely because religious fundamentalism has become such a concern that atheistic voices are needed now more than ever. Blane Conklin at Do Not Read This Blog offers up a homily for the holy week [21] on religious credulity and concludes that maybe Doubting Thomas just might have been onto something. Following in Blane's footsteps Barry Mahfood exposes one of the most common fallacies [22] employed by those who would have us believe in their myths and then follows up by dissecting Christian apologist Lee Strobel's arguments [23] for religion. Lastly in this section we have another post from Jeremy at The Voltage Gate clueing us in on How to Piss Off Pagans in One Sentence [24].

[24]Epicurus and Metrodorus: Double herm at the Louvre.Speaking Philosophically
Atheists perhaps moreso than anyone else are given to philosophical rumination. Whether this is due to the fact that our philosophical beliefs aren't hierarchially dictated leaving us to forage for the "truth" on our own or a personality quark that predisposes us to doubt, it's not just religion we question but ourselves as well. In our second post today from Austin Cline, Austin takes on fellow atheist Robert J. Sawyer [25] who criticizes "atheists and skeptics for being insensitive, rude, and condescending." Well, I must say I've been accused of being each of these things (and occassionally all three at once) but who knew that displaying a Darwin Fish should be considered the height of insensitivity and evidence that the skeptical movement has failed?

Next, Heather Annastasia expounds on why The Comfort You Seek in Permanence is an Illusion [26]. While Heather's position is one to which I am generally agreeable I can't help but finding a couple of nits to pick. Heather writes:

"And yet, even in science, we insist upon establishing "norms" and "ideals." We want laws that we can say for certain will never change, even though the very concept of "unchanging truths" exist only in our imaginations and holy folklore.

Do you know why Latin is a dead language? Because the authorities wanted to preserve the "right" "proper" and "true" Latin with rules, and they did."

Heather's first statement seems to me to be an example of an old chestnut used by purveyors of quality woo. While Heather is not using it in this sense, the woo-woo will often use a similar statement to make an argument that those damnable scientists just aren't able to make up their minds or that the "laws" of science we think we know are transient and communally defined norms that change with the culture and the times. Neither perspective is true of course as all propositions in science are probationary until such time as the proposition is either demonstrated as false or refined and built upon to more closely match reality.

As for why Latin is a dead language, I'm out of my league here but I would think it'd have more to do with the fact that the Roman Empire first surrendered or abandoned territories that it could no longer allocate resources to support or military personnel to control and thus leaving the natives to their original tongues. Another factor I would think would be the fact that for a very long time the Catholic Church saw no benefit to teaching the citizenry to read and write Latin (likely to assert their authority as delivering the true word of god). I'd love to hear what Carnival of the Godless' and Neural Gourmet's readers have to say on this subject.

Closing out this edition's atheisitical philosophical diversion are two posts that explore what disbelief does for us. Bill Snedden at Random Neurons Firing [27] explains thar far from decrying or eschewing mystery, atheists merely assert that one need not label any unexplained mysteries as 'god'. From Aaron Powell at Symbolic Order we have a post that is part of a series on better living without god(s) asserting that atheistic philosophies are better positioned than religion to offer us Purpose in Life [28].

[28]Speaking Personally
For our final section in Carnival of the Godless #64 we have four posts that speak to the personal; from the mundane to the sublime. hellojed at It Had Better Be Good briefly talks about how atheists are affected by laws enacted by the theistic majority vis a vis The Good Friday prohibition [29] in Ireland. Charlie Dowd talks about his personal journey [30] from agnostic to atheist. Faith at That Is So Queer sings, er, writes about The Atheism Blues [31], 'cause, you know, "Being an atheist isn't easy." And fittingly, our last post is from Mike Haubrich who after attending the funerals of several young people lets us know how he would like to be memorialized in An Atheist's Funeral [32].

End Notes
And thus we come to the end of this bi-week's Carnival of the Godless. If you've made it this far you have the tenacity of, of, well, the tenacity of something well known for having a lot of tenacity. Believe it or not I do run out of words... eventually. But bytes are cheap and links are free so bear with me just a little bit more! Thanks for turning out and to all those atheists who supported Blog Against Theocracy. You can find the virtual carnival tent (certified 100% non-real by our crack team of metaphysical naturalists) next time at Klaas Acts [33] on April 29th. Don't forget to send in your posts via blogcarnival.com [34]. And now you have truly reached the end, for which you've earned yourself a free cookie [35]. They're fat free! Unfortunately, they're also the DIY kind.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

[38] | [39] | [40] | [41] | [42] | [43] | [44] | [45] | [46] | [47] | [48]