30 December 2010

Why I Won't Explain Why I'm an Atheist

I’ve been an atheist for a long time, and I would prefer not to tell you why. I will say this about it: I don’t know when I first started to doubt, but I was about fifteen when I first acknowledged my doubt to myself. It took another ten years of struggling with my faith, or lack thereof, before I admitted it to my family. I cannot summarize my struggle with faith in two or three sentences, or even two or three paragraphs, so I will not attempt it.

I’ve had conversations with people (believers, all; Christians, all) who wanted to know why I became an atheist. I’ve had enough of these conversations to find them tiresome. I’ve had enough of them to know that no good will come of repeating the experience. There were slight variations, but the conversations usually went something like this:

Them: Why did you become an atheist?

Me: [One or two, or if I’m lucky, three sentences about my early struggle with faith and doubt]

Them: Oh, but you don’t really believe that, do you?

Me: Yes—

Them: Seriously, though, you believe in God.

Me: No, I’m an atheist—

Them: Well, you just need to read the Bible.

Me: I have read it, three times.

Them: Well, you didn’t understand it, then.


Because there’s nothing like telling me to my face that I’m stupid (and telling me that I didn’t understand a book I’ve read three times is calling me stupid) to argue faith into me.

I get that some people read the Bible and find comfort and peace in the pages. I didn’t. I would read a few chapters and feel cold, empty, and alone. Reading a few more chapters left me even colder, emptier, and more alone. Reading some chapters made me angry. Some chapters made me hate myself, not because I was leaning toward atheism, but because I wasn’t already shouting my status as an atheist. But my religious leaders had successfully drilled into my young mind that atheists are necessarily evil, that it’s impossible to be good without God. I doubt the religious leaders of my youth had ever met an atheist, or given them a fair shake if they had.

I want to make a few things clear. I have absolutely no interest in trying to convert other people to atheism. I also have no interest in pretending to be a believer so believers can feel good about “saving my soul,” or whatever it is that makes it so important to them that I believe in a deity, preferably theirs. I do have an interest in keeping religion, particularly biblical literalism (Creationism, Intelligent Design, etc.) out of science classrooms. I care about my country. I would not hire a plumber who was trained by ballet dancers, or an electrician who was trained by dentists. (Or, for that matter, a dentist who was trained by electricians. I might be interested in a ballet performed by plumbers, but I would never confuse it with the real thing.) The content of biology textbooks should be determined by biologists. The content of geology textbooks should be determined by geologists. People who don’t know what the scientific method is should teach their children that they have to understand what their teachers say, but they don’t have to believe it. And if their children turn into scientists who don’t believe in the literal truth of the Bible, parents should love them anyway.

If you want to believe that Chthulhu, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and the Invisible Pink Unicorn butted heads in the sky, causing the Big Bang, fine. You’re entitled to that belief. But you’re not entitled to make science teachers teach it. But I digress.

I’m not as concerned with what other people believe about cosmology and spirituality and religion as I am with the First Amendment. As I read it, the US Founding Fathers considered it a dangerous thing for government to legislate what people think and believe, also their expression of their thoughts and beliefs. I take it a step further: It’s foolish for smaller organizations, and especially individuals, to try.

I am an atheist. That fact does not change your beliefs (or lack thereof), or at least it shouldn’t. If it does, then you probably had issues with your stated beliefs before you ever knew of my existence. But again, I am not interested in converting anyone to atheism; I respect that others’ experiences are not identical to my own. But I’m not going to try to explain or justify my lack of beliefs. Been there, done that. Should probably buy the T-shirt.

16 December 2010

Stargate Universe

SyFy canceled Stargate Universe today. It will apparently finish its second season and then die an ignoble death. Fans of the earlier incarnations of the Stargate franchise seem pleased. My feelings are mixed, and that's a compliment to SGU.

The only reasons I saw Stargate (the feature film) were that my sister wanted to see it (and when she saw a movie, I usually saw it, too), and at the time I had a bit of a crush on James Spader. My sister loved the movie. I... didn't. But then, I studied Anthropology, and had taken enough classes in Archaeology to know who Erich von Däniken was. If you don't know, he's a Swiss pseudo-scientist who claims that the Egyptians could not possibly have built the pyramids, so they must have been constructed by aliens from outer space (he goes into a bit more detail than that, but that's a sufficiently fair assessment of his "work" for the purposes of this post). Stargate is one of the few films I've seen that's actually made me think less of an actor I'd previously liked. I don't remember how long it took before I could watch James Spader in anything after that.

Anyway, because Stargate takes Erich von Däniken seriously, I studiously avoided watching SG-1 and SG-Atlantis. I had no desire to contribute in any way to the further propagation of pseudo-science founded on some form of bigotry (and assuming that a group of people couldn't have built the structures that they did, in fact, build, so you can use those structures as "proof" that there is intelligent life in outer space is bigoted, or at the very least prejudiced).

I wanted the franchise to die.

When Stargate Universe was announced, I initially couldn't have cared less, except that it was further propagation of a bigoted myth. Then they cast Robert Carlyle.

Cracker: To Be a Somebody
Trainspotting
The Full Monty


They cast the one actor who could have made me interested in the show. Then they added John Scalzi as Creative Consultant, and my watching the show became a certainty.

One of our generation's best actors played one of the most interesting and complicated characters on any current television show. They made only passing references to the pyramid bullshit, which helped keep the show out of trouble (at least as far as I was concerned). I also felt like they didn't settle--everyone in the cast seemed right to me, the dialogue had unexpected depths of subtext, the characters weren't always sympathetic, and the production values were better than a science fiction series based on pseudo-science has any right to have.

So, while I'm glad that Erich von Däniken no longer has a television franchise spewing his lunatic ravings, I'm sad to see so many good people out of work, and I'm sorry they won't get to finish telling their stories.

RIP, Stargate Universe

11 December 2010

Richard Milhouse Nixon: The Real Irish Jew

In the preface to The Picture of Dorian Gray, Oscar Wilde wrote: "The highest, as the lowest, form of criticism is a mode of autobiography."

With that in mind, the critical thoughts of Richard Nixon (as reported in The Washington Post):

"Virtually every Irish I've known gets mean when he drinks. It's sort of a natural trait. Particularly the real Irish."

"The Italians, of course, just don't have their heads screwed on tight. They are wonderful people, but . . ."

"The Jews are just a very aggressive and abrasive and obnoxious personality."

"[Bill Rogers] says, well, 'They [Blacks] are coming along, and that after all, they are going to strengthen our country in the end because they are strong physically and some of them are smart.' So forth and so on. My own view is I think he's right if you're talking in terms of 500 years. I think it's wrong if you're talking in terms of 50 years. What has to happen is they have to be, frankly, inbred1."

"[M]ost of our Jewish friends . . . they are all basically people who have a sense of inferiority and have got to compensate."


For the record, I don't know what kind of drunk I am because I don't drink (and my not being Irish has nothing to do with that). I don't think my head's screwed on particularly tightly, even though I'm not Italian. I'll leave the question as to whether I'm a "wonderful" person to others. My grandfather was Jewish, so I guess I'm 25% aggressive, 25% abrasive, and 25% obnoxious. (Actually, I'm not very aggressive at all, but I can be quite obnoxious; how about 5% aggressive and 45% obnoxious?)

But how, using his own rubric, does one explain Nixon? (He seems like he would have been a real mean drunk, I think that everything he said about Jews probably applied to him in greater measure, and I'm not sure exactly where his comments on African Americans came from--"500 years"? Really? Even considering the enormous strides they'd made in just the dozen or so years prior to the recording of these comments?)


1I'm not sure how Nixon defined inbred, but I do not think it means what he thought it means.

02 December 2010

On the money

The Arizona Daily Star's political cartoonist, David Fitzsimmons, was perfect on December 1, 2010. Seriously.