Chronic Philomathy

Why debate questions of religion?

noreply@blogger.com (Neil) — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 23:40:00 +0000

Recently, I took part in a discussion with a friend that touched on issues about which I care very deeply. The rationality of religious belief; the wisdom of religious belief; the nature of knowledge itself--what does it mean to be certain?

Although we did not tread any ground that hasn't been covered before by people with far more pedigree and knowledge, I thought it was a healthy, it somewhat heated, discussion on these "Big Questions" between my nonreligious self and my considerably more religious friend. I was surprised, then, when a third-party posted the following:

"If you are a Atheist. . .Why do you have to challenge GOD????? This is something you chose not to BELIEVE IN. . .Why would you have to have this arguement with members of the Christian Community????? Do you try to challenge a belivers faith in thier GOD just to prove 'your point'? Who appointed you chief antagonist?????

I think you are looking for something in your life that you do not have. . .A sense of belonging in a Christian Community. Ah! First you would have to BELIEVE Iin the generousity of GOD."

These words ring with the sound of a defensive anger, somewhere between "how dare you?" and "why can't you just live and let live?" And to a certain extent, I understand. We all have our sacred cows, so to speak, and it can be a deeply affecting, negative experience to have them bluntly criticized by outsiders. And religion is usually the most sacred cow of all.

But while I understand some of this anger, I also believe that it's misplaced. In fact, I think the author of the above comment misunderstands the purpose of the debate in question, and maybe even all similar critical responses to religion from the atheist community. So I feel an obligation to answer, from my point of view, the questions posed.

AM I CHALLENGING GOD?

"If you are a Atheist. . .Why do you have to challenge GOD????? This is something you chose not to BELIEVE IN"

I hate to start with a quibble about spelling and word choice, but I want to clarify that I am an "atheist", not an "Atheist". That capital letter equates atheism with Christianity, Judaism, etc. in a way that I think is inaccurate. Atheism is not a system of belief in the way that an organized religion is. Instead, I consider the word's literal meaning: a-theism, or "without theistic belief". This is important, because it describes a different kind of debate. This was not "Codified Worldview 1 vs. Codified Worldview 2". Instead, the oppositional relationship is "a theistic worldview vs. a nontheistic one". This avoids the messiness of doctrine, dogma, and apologetics.

With that semantic point out of the way, I want to consider the next statement. Am I truly "challenging God"?

From the atheistic perspective, this sentence doesn't carry much meaning. I would argue that, for me, "challenging God" would be the same as "challenging unicorns"--an impossible task, given the nonexistence of the subject matter. I can no more "challenge God" than I can "hate God" or "hug God" or "pray to God". To me, these are meaningless terms and so they cannot be my true intent.

But of course this will be unpersuasive to the believer. So let me make clear in terms that both sides can agree on that I am not challenging any particular god by outlining how I see my position in the debate; I am challenging the foundations of a belief in god or, more generally, the supernatural or divine. In fact, I make clear at several points in the referenced debate that while I believe the existence of a god is unlikely, neither I nor a believer can offer rational PROOF on this front. I can certainly stipulate a hypothetical where a god exists, but where there is no rational reason to believe in him/her/it. That's the position I take in the argument.

WHY DO I HAVE TO ARGUE WITH CHRISTIANS?

". . .Why would you have to have this arguement with members of the Christian Community?????"

First, I think it's fairly obvious that I don't have to argue theological points with religious believers. I choose to do so. More importantly, so do the people I debate with. At no point was this debate an example of atheistic evangelizing. Instead, it was an opportunity for both me and my theistic friend to lay bare our observations and assertions, open for criticism from the other party.

I can't speak on behalf of rank-and-file Christian believers, but I know that, among those who take their beliefs seriously from a scholarly, theological perspective, this kind of self-examination--a willingness to partake in debate and exchange of ideas with those who disagree--is an essential element in cementing their core beliefs. I know it's a trite misquotation to use in my defense, but Socrates' "the unexamined life is not worth living" is a tenet that nearly all theologians and philosophers embrace. What is the value of any worldview or religious belief that cannot endure friendly debate? We live in a world of many competing and often-contradictory religious and non-religious viewpoints. If those viewpoints must remain safely cloistered away, to never be criticized or examined from the outside, then how are we to know if they are of value?

WHO APPOINTED ME "CHIEF ANTAGONIST"?

"Do you try to challenge a belivers faith in thier GOD just to prove 'your point'? Who appointed you chief antagonist?????"

There is a famous adage that says that polite conversation should avoid discussions of politics and religion. I couldn't disagree more. This strikes me as nothing more than a recommendation to hide our passions, lest we offend our friends and neighbors. How friendly or neighborly is it to conceal our true selves? It's only by examining the most deeply felt beliefs of those close to me that I gain insight into who they, and I, are as people.

I disagree intensely with any accusation that I am being unnecessarily antagonistic. I know that my writing can sometimes be blunt, and in past conversations I've sometimes crossed a line or two of civility that I wish I could take back. But to suggest that the whole endeavor of debate on Big Questions with those who hold different beliefs is somehow negative and antagonistic? A friend once used the word "incurious" to describe positions like that. And there's nothing that causes me more sadness than to see a lack of curiosity in others.

So, no, I'm not being antagonistic. In the best cases, what I try to be is both a teacher and learner: share what I know, and learn what I don't. I can't think of another way I'd rather be.

While I think what I've written explains well my position in the referenced debate, I don't think it's the only reason for an atheist like me to engage religious followers. My general posture on religious belief is "live and let live", but sometimes this isn't good enough. Here are some other, more pragmatic cases where I might "antagonize", as you say:

If a friend or acquaintance is living according to a set of principles that I believe to be harmful to him or her, I feel that I have a moral obligation to try and offer an alternative. For a nonreligious example, imagine how you might get involved in the life of someone who is being serially abused by their significant other. Surely you would want to make sure they know that there is a wider world out there for them--that they can leave the abuser to find a world filled with support and opportunity. You would want to make sure they know that true loving relationships don't endure the trials of abuse, and that they're not "stuck", that others will stand with them.

Now imagine instead that we're talking about a young woman whose family's beliefs require that she assume a permanently subservient role to the men in her life; that she marry the man of her parent's choosing at the time of her parent's choosing. That her own personal hopes and desires are secondary to the concerns of a faith that is all she's known her entire life.

If you don't share that faith, wouldn't you feel an obligation to at least let this woman know that there is another way to be? That she can live a personally fulfilling life with people who care about her without denigrating her, that she has more inherent worth than that which her family and religion assigns?

In situations like this, where a prevailing religious belief is causing the believer real harm, then I may feel a moral need to offer my perspective, on the slim hope that it may make a positive difference to the believer. Now, you and I may disagree about when religious belief causes harm to the believer, but surely you can understand this intent?

The other major place where I feel it is most appropriate to engage in religious debate is at the intersection of religious belief and public policy. This takes two forms:

The active form: Laws that treat doctrines of faith as though they are empirical fact. Representative laws include those that prohibit abortions and stem cell research, or encourage the teaching of intelligent design. Also representative are laws that enforce a codified, dogmatic morality, such as anti-obscenity laws, or many drug prohibitions.

People have very strong opinions on most of the above political issues, and this essay isn't the appropriate place to debate their intricacies, but every one of them imposes a religious belief on those who may not share it.

And you'll note that the contrary position to these laws is never truly the contrary: nobody would ever suggest the absurd laws of required abortions, or a minimum quota on embryos destroyed for stem cell research, or mandatory drug use, etc. These are the moral equivalents, in the other direction, of the laws at issue.

I'm strongly of the belief that a free government should be agnostic in intent, and that the best laws would represent this. What pro-choice laws, drug legalization movements, etc. do is give people some credit. They say "we trust you to make your own moral judgments, you don't need the arm of the law to compel your behavior. Those of you who are opposed to drug use won't use drugs, and those of you who are not opposed may choose to do so.."

Of course there are many subtle complications to all of these issues, and my goal is not to get mired in policy debate, but you get the point--there is religiously-originated morality to many such laws, and that fact carries with it the potential to rob many of their personal liberties.

The passive form: These instances may not seem as important at first, but their additive effect is still quite powerful. Can you, for a moment, imagine a world where:

Your currency boldly stated "WE TRUST IN NO GOD"
You pledged your allegiance to "one nation, UNDER NO GOD AT ALL"
Your children's school days began with a moment of silence to reflect on the nonexistence of any divine entity?

I would imagine that these scenarios all seem like an affront, an insult to your faith. If so, then you've started to understand what life is like for the attentive nonbeliever. Whether this country was founded as a Christian nation or not (and I strongly believe 'not'), it's certainly not one now. Yes, Christianity is the dominant religion, but a majority-rule society does not mean a minority-oppressed one. This is a nation of Jews, Christians, Muslims, nonbelievers, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikh, and many others. Is the faith of the believer so weak as to need constant reassurance whenever he or she buys a candy bar? You can trust in God while I don't, and we can both live in America while doing so. You don't need to be told what to do by your pocket change.

So those times--when religious belief leads to suffering, or when those who hold non-religious worldviews are the victims of passive prejudice or unfair dismissal--will also sometimes warrant what you call antagonism. But at no point do we engage in this simply to "prove our point".

WHERE'S MY SENSE OF BELONGING?

"I think you are looking for something in your life that you do not have. . .A sense of belonging in a Christian Community. Ah! First you would have to BELIEVE Iin the generousity of GOD."

With this, you've switched from defense to offense. I'll try to maintain my good behavior, but I'd be lying if I didn't tell you that this line of thought is intensely aggravating to many of us in the secular community.

There's not much I can say about your second assertion: you're right that, in order to have a sense of belonging in the Christian community, I would probably first have to believe in the generosity of its god.

But so what? If Christians share this belief, it leads to a sense of belonging: fine. But the belief in question could still be wrong. That something feels powerfully true does not make it so, and the fact that some churchgoers get that warm and fuzzy feeling? That's in no way a compelling reason to feel it myself. You might be right about god and belief, or you might be mistaken or deluded. It takes a lot of hubris to claim to definitively know the difference.

As to your first assertion, that I must be looking to fill a hole in my life...oh, brother! I've heard this so many times from religious believers who simply can't comprehend how someone could possibly lead a fulfilling life without feeling the presence of the divine. It's as though they assume that no nonbeliever has ever come from a religious background, has never experienced what they have experienced. More incredible hubris!

If you truly think that it's necessarily more difficult, or even impossible, to live a happy and fulfilled life without the presence of a god, well--you're just outright mistaken. My own life is far from perfect, but it's been a very long time since any of the "holes" in it were remotely God-shaped. My inspirations, my comforts, my passions, and my happiness all come from elsewhere. It doesn't feel like I'm "missing" anything. You're welcome to think that nonbelievers like me are mistaken in our feelings of fulfillment, but your insistence that I must be experiencing a "hole in my life" pretends an insight into the secular mind that you just don't seem to have.

The Christian community boasts many good people, but from the outside looking in, we nonmembers can see the ugly fringes of it that you don't always notice: the bigoted bible-thumpers, the holier-than-thou theologians, the simplistic Christian Nation "patriots", and so on. Any community that allows their extremist, hateful behavior--even on its fringes--isn't one that I want to be a part of. The only Christian groups that earn my respect are the ones that explicitly condemn this kind of talk and action.

We atheists have our bad guys, too. But you'll never hear me, by virtue of my silence, implicitly agreeing with those who call all religious believers 'stupid' or who think that all childhood religious instruction is "child abuse". That stuff's ridiculous, and I'll gladly say so.

There are things I envy about religious communities, there's no doubt about that. Religious communities often do good works in their neighborhoods and cities, and can provide charity and safe haven for those who are "down-and-out". Further, the whole idea of "community"--people who care for and look out for one another--is an appealing one. But none of that has anything to do with a guy on a cross.

I hope, in the course of this response, I've answered the questions at the heart of the original message. I'm happy to discuss this further, and have left the comments sections open both here and on Facebook, with the following stipulation: disagree with me and one another all you like, but be civil.

(Last edited 03:03AM EDT, 06.27.10 to correct minor grammar errors)

A short discussion: Who should pay for K-12 education?

noreply@blogger.com (Neil) — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 22:57:00 +0000

Several days ago, a Facebook friend complained about the "Pay to Play" system being adopted by some public school districts. This system in essence requires that parents pay the cost of extracurricular activities in order for their children to participate.

I think this is an interesting topic, and one that warrants a discussion. A slightly different debate emerged, however, between me and another Facebook citizen. The focus became "who should pay for K-12 education?", and the argument below ensued. I'd love to hear feedback from the wider world about the points raised, as well as any other perspectives you have to contribute.

I've left the conversation as is from Facebook, complete with the spelling and grammar errors that sometimes creep in during a fast back-and-forth. I've replaced names (besides my own) with initials, and moved one snippet for clarity, but the conversation otherwise unfolded exactly as below:

FROM JP:

The system that perpetuates the haves and the have nots is getting worse. Public schools around the country are adoption a "Pay to Play" mantra and I personally think it is absolutely ridiculous. To all of my inner city brethren and to all my underprivileged brethren- I AM SORRY!

FROM ABS at 8:37am July 10

if that means that public schools will pay tuition...im all for it..instead of me having to pay thru my real estate taxes! *Disclaimer: My opinion can beat up your opinion!*

FROM Neil Moakley at 9:31am July 10

Are you talking about this? http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/strollerderby/archive/2009/04/09/is-pay-to-play-at-public-schools-fair.aspx

If so, that sounds pretty horrible.Because how much money your dad makes should determine how good your education is, right? :-p

ABS,

There are a lot of excellent "for the public good" reasons why public schools don't--and shouldn't--charge tuition. I can't imagine saving a few bucks on property taxes to be a compelling counterargument.

FROM ABS at 12:16pm July 10

i paid for mine & my childrens education...there are alot of people out there who can pay and dont cause of a free ride...i view it like welfare...misused..dont believe senior citizens should have to pay either...i could go on & on...hope u get my point

ps i do believe however..to be fair, that it be based on income...those that can afford it should...those of lesser means or more than 1 child get a break...those as in this economy who are in dire straights for free w/volunteer work....this has become a country of wiifms...long past its history of hard work & embarressment for a free hand out.

FROM Neil Moakley at 12:27pm July 10

You paid for your own primary school education?

I don't buy the "free ride" argument in general, but it strikes me as especially false here. Even if you accept the argument that the welfare system is exploited, how in the world can you extend that analogy to education. . what's happening exactly, the freeloaders are *learning for free*?

You and I may have very different views on the social contract that a wealthy country like this one should have with its citizens, but from where I stand, basic education isn't something you're rewarded with because your parents have a big bank account--it's a fundamental right.

As to your second post, re income contingency--isn't that pretty much exactly what property tax-based education is doing? You own a lot, you pay a lot; you own a little, you pay a little...

A family exploiting this system seems like an outright fiction to me. Are we talking about a wealthy family who chooses to hide assets so as to lower their tax burden, and get away with sending their kids to public school without paying?

What you're saying sounds a lot like an overextension to the "welfare is bad" argument, which I won't address here, but I really don't see how it fits with education.

What I think JP is talking about in the original post, incidentally, is extracurricular activities, or what the schools deem "non-essential". This is still very problematic, but your idea of pay-to-attend-primary-school isn't being seriously considered by even the most libertarian of jurisdictions.

FROM ABS at 12:48pm July 10

Are you a home owner? hmmm...ok fair enough...all welfare issues aside...no one in this country is "entitled" to a anything...that is the problem...too many people thinking they are "entitled". Especially the rich. I came from a poor family...in fact, I had to wear shoes with cardboard in them when we couldnt afford new ones, however, I did attend school and yes (let me clarify) my parents always paid tuition first..education was the priority. As I still believe it should be today. But I find it hard to think anyone would have the audacity to think they were "entitled" to anything free...be it education or extra curricular activities..(I don't believe extra curricular activities are non-essential)...families exploiting the system is far from fiction...I am now a homeowner and as ignorant as you may find what I have to say...I dont want to have to lose my house in this tight economy or any other because my school taxes have doubled raising my mortgage to foreclosure

If homeowners who didnt have children in the school system paid even only 1 third I would be happy...there are many who rent with three or more (yes I know some) kids that don't pay anything and have the audacity to brag...at any rate, I would love to debate this over a cold brew as find you a formidable opponent and I love a good "debate"...Im female lol...but for now we will just have to agree to disagree.

ps...I just got my bill for school taxes and by the way...it is triple my house taxes and was just raised up while property values decrease...I like to hear the tax collector explain that! Although I will get by ok...hard to see it happening to the elderly who also already paid their dues for their own children.

FROM Neil Moakley at 12:58pm July 10

I still can't imagine the situation where someone exploits the property tax system to get their child a public education without paying their share, even though they are able to. That's what I'm calling a fiction, and I stand by it.

I don't think that what you have to say is ignorant; I think you've thought hard about it, and I suspect that the idea that you propose might work well for you, your family, and people in similar situations. It might even work better for ME.

But to me, equal education is a much bigger issue than whether or not my wallet is happy, or yes, even whether or not I can afford to stay in my home. There's no doubt in my mind, though, that public schools charging tuition = more children without access to decent education. And that's unacceptable to me, no matter HOW high my property taxes might climb.

As far as your recent example (which arrived as I was typing the above): saying that renters don't pay anything towards property tax is like saying that when you buy something from Wal-Mart that you're not paying for the cost of shipping the products out from the factory to the store...of course you are, it's a part of the retail price!

Landlords don't just eat the cost of property tax, it's right there in the $$$ the tenant coughs up every month.

As to your last point, I won't disagree that there are imperfections in the WAY that taxes are assessed. Property taxes could be more progressive, or loopholes could be more smartly constructed. I'm certainly not arguing for the status quo as what's best--I think the system is fundamentally broken. I just think education is right up there with "national security" on the short list of things the government's hands actually belong in.

FROM ABS at 1:15pm July 10

Let me clarify...I do believe there should be the same "quality" of education regardless of rich or poor...what Im trying to say is that the majority of the $$$ should be on the parents of these children to make sure they are providing for their child, not me or anyone else...if it happens, be grateful not feel "entitled". And yes as hard as it is for you to believe...renters may have a portion divided among them say in a building...however, is it fair that the old lady in apt A pay the same as the renters with 3 kids??? I think not but it does happen more often than not. I agree my opinion may seem harsh to some people..but I do believe this country as a whole needs a harsh awakening before it is too late...then maybe, just maybe we wont be left behind others in the education race once parents take a more hands on in their own children's education instead of looking for handouts..a helping hand is one thing...but a hand out is another and I have been around long enough to see this

Ps...nice to have met you Neil!

FROM JP at 2:32pm July 10

WOW, look what i started. Love the conversation, keep it up.

FROM Neil Moakley at 3:35pm July 10

The question of education funding, access, etc. very quickly exceeds the bounds of these little comment boxes on Facebook. Although I understand your reasons for feeling the way you do, ABS, I maintain that a pay-as-you-go program for education, even heavily subsidized, would be a colossal mistake. The only thing it has to recommend it is an apparent sense of "fairness", but to me that fairness is only skin deep.

If there is *any* such thing as a public good, then education has got to be one. You'll be hard pressed to find many serious economic arguments for removing the government's obligation to provide national security. Everyone benefits and few complain, even though it's entirely possible that my life was never *directly* saved by the actions of the armed forces.

A nearly identical argument exists for education; the childless property owner is not paying for "someone else's kids" to go to school on their dime. That money is the responsibility of a WHOLE community investing in its own future. You don't get to "opt out"; it's part of the price we pay--like the taxes that go to national defense--for having reaped the innumerable benefits of living in a prosperous, free, and opportunity-filled country. And we all--from the most fortunate of us to the least fortunate--have benefited--even those of us with the cardboard shoes of your childhood or the food stamps of mine.

Compelling arguments exist that suggest that the basic rights of the citizens of any wealthy country could be extended further--to healthcare, to housing, even to internet access...all those arguments have been made.

But we don't need to go there: the argument for education as a public good--benefiting far more than "my" child or "your" child--is well-established, and even antedates the United States. Thomas Paine was an advocate, and there's been a strong tradition of support for the idea since.

The problem is that people like philosophy and "big ideas" until it hits them in the wallet. The trade-off for ANY taxation is always "am I willing to be SLIGHTLY less well-off so that the nation as a whole is slightly BETTER off?" My answer is yes, even if it pains me on tax day.

Once I've accepted the assumption that education is a public good and that we are not, in fact, "paying for our own", but instead providing financial support for the system that is in part responsible for our own successes...well, then the rest of my perspective comes pretty easily. What's key for me:

- For the above reasons, primary and secondary (K-12) education should be largely government-funded. I don't care if there are people exploiting this system. If there are, then they'll hopefully get a good education out of it. That's the whole point!

- So long as education funding is chiefly the responsibility of state or local governments, rather than Washington, the ways in which public funding can be gathered are necessarily limited. Local income taxes are low, and state income taxes are already well-spoken for. Sales taxes would have to be significantly higher to cover education expenses, and suffer from all the same sort-of problems as property taxes, PLUS most economists seem to agree that sales tax-based systems would be more regressive (that is, they eat a larger portion of poor people's incomes than rich people's)

So there aren't that many local tax sources available. The other common idea besides property taxes is state lottery funds. Lotteries are optional, unlike taxes, but may result in revenue shortfalls AND tend to be *very* regressive.

I agree that the property tax system is imperfect. A progressive system where those who've benefited the most from the wealth and prosperity of our society should owe the most to that society. But there's no perfect way to measure and tax that. Until I hear a better idea, property taxes seem to come the closest for me.

Of course, all this means that property taxation needs to be fair. THAT'S a whole other issue. Property value assessments are notoriously corrupt here in Philadelphia, and we're far from the only place. But that's a problem with the assessment system, and not the principle that underlies education funding.

FROM ABS at 3:50pm July 10

I think your mixing apples w/oranges when you mix "defense" with the "education" debate...with out the right to defend ourselves...our debate would not be able to happen as this country would no longer be able to have the free speech to learn whatever we set our minds to learn and say! If not for that we wouldnt be able to have an opinion at all, now forget education.

"There's no doubt in my mind, though, that public schools charging tuition = more children without access to decent education. And that's unacceptable to me, no matter HOW high my property taxes might climb."

Either you have $$ or you dont own property or both...and if so..would you risk your own property to be on the streets for the good of the "community"?

Again like I said, we will just have to agree to disagree as I see you are an Idealist and I am a Realist.

FROM Neil Moakley at 4:03pm July 10

ABS, you write:

"Either you have $$ or you dont own property or both...and if so..would you risk your own property to be on the streets for the good of the "community"?

Again like I said, we will just have to agree to disagree as I see you are an Idealist and I am a Realist."

---

You've presented me with a set of false dichotomies here:

1. The choice is not between risking my own property or neglecting the good of the community. I have the same selfish desire that we all do: to put myself and my own well-being first. I could live a less frugal life if I was singularly focused on the well-being of me and mine. But I'm not. The community doesn't come first, but it doesn't come last either. It's not me vs. them. It's "US". The taxes and sacrifices of other people helped make it possible for me to get a great education. I'm not going to turn my back on that system now that I'm no longer reaping the benefit.

2. I'm an idealist AND a realist. I look for solutions that work BEYOND the ones that are easiest. It would be easiest for me, without children, to not have to subsidize public education. But it wouldn't be right. I don't daydream, but I look forward to what CAN be, not just what IS.

It's *easy* to forget this kind of stuff when our bank accounts dip to dangerous places. I think that's when it's most important that we don't.

Also, on a more practical level, your "I can't spare another penny" argument is a little out of proportion. I don't know how it is where you are, but here in Philly, less than half of the assessed property taxes go to the school district. Add to that that the BRT has been woefully lax and corrupt in their assessments, and really, we're paying hardly *anything* for education.

If the above case was too idealistic, here are some more pragmatic considerations:

- how much money is it worth for you to live in a community filled with people with a decent high school level education or higher? How much would you have to save for it to be worth it to, say, allow 10% of your neighbors to not have adequate schooling? 20%? It's not just touchy-feely idealism to say "I want to do my part to ensure that my community is adequately educated", it's a position of self-interest, too. It's not that long a road from inferior public school education to shortages of doctors, nurses, and other highly-educated professions. It's in both of our self-interests to mitigate that risk.

- the Program for International Student Assessment is the primary measure by which American student performance is assessed. We rank below the OECD average in both math and science, and we're not doing too hot among non-OECD countries either. Literacy is being assessed this year, and I expect similar results.

Here's a partial list of countries that do better than us: Finland, Canada, Japan, France, UK, Germany, most of Western Europe, etc...not to mention South Korea, Chinese Taipei, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Lithuania, and about a dozen more. Now, I don't know the funding sources for education for ALL of these countries, but *most* of them acquire their funding from *all* citizens, not just those with school-age children. As I said above, there are many well-founded public policy reasons for doing so.

Again, I haven't done the research on all of them, but I'd be *very* surprised to see a pay-as-you-go system ranked higher than ours.

There is a real problem with a property tax based system, of course, but it's not the one we're discussing here. The problem is that funds are distributed on a pretty tight regional basis. That means that across the river, the Camden city schools are funded by the paltry property taxes received from Camden residents. As one of the poorest cities in the country, this is not exactly a pot of gold. As a result, the district is underfunded, the students are undereducated, and the community is less able to do the bootstrap-pulling necessary to raise those property values, etc etc.

I DO think a good argument can be made that more funding is NOT the solution. We spend more per student than all countries but one in that list I mentioned above. Clearly, something more than dollars needs to be addressed. That's the real core of the problem. And to bring this back on point, which I think you, me, and JP *all* agree with--eliminating access to extra-curricular activities is NOT the way to success.

FROM JP at 8:26pm July 10

NEIL, Can we get married in the state of Pennsylvania??? I want your mind, body, and soul. On a more serious note, I agree with both of your arguments and disagree with both of your arguments. However, the real problem is where that funding is going and why does our society allow public schools to cut programs like; music, women's soccer, and tennis. Hence, eliminating too many extra-curricular activities. thereby putting those kids on the streets to fend for themselves. And to compound that problem, their parents either dont care too much about their kids whereabouts or those children come from a 2 income household and neither parent is around to look after the children. NO WIN SITUATION THERE!!!

FROM ABS at 1:17am July 11

Ok college boy...I dont agree with most of what you are stating...all the stats in the world wont convince me fully of your arguement...Im not a dr, lawyer or indian chief...I am a collector by trade and have been in the finance world for over 20 years...I see nationwide the horrors happening to people due to the corrupt misuse of government funding from housing to education and taxes...I didnt get my stats out of a book...they are from real life experiences....HOWEVER...I will agree with your last post about......

I DO think a good argument can be made that more funding is NOT the solution. We spend more per student than all countries but one in that list I mentioned above. Clearly, something more than dollars needs to be addressed. That's the real core of the problem. And to bring this back on point, which I think you, me, and JP *all* agree with--eliminating access to extra-curricular activities is NOT the way to success.

TO JP: I agree! "And to compound that problem, their parents either dont care too much about their kids whereabouts or those children come from a 2 income household and neither parent is around to look after the children. NO WIN SITUATION THERE!!!"

Aside from the not caring which is a separate argument...this problem has gone way far back to the era when the American family came to the point of HAVING to be a 2 income family...it once was a luxury now a necessity which also has had its hand in the deterioration of the American people as a society...both parents working to make ends meet..children amuck...hard to keep values in tack when at least one parent is not able/willing to give quality time to their children..then to compound matters..when something goes wrong..no one wants to own up to their own responsibilities..and this is the attitude carried forward to the offspring. Maybe we as a society need to start over from scratch..humm

Niel..not meant to give false dichotomies..I am all about thinking outside the box for a solution..which is different from how I believe we as a society have arrived at the point we are now..for quite a few decades now, we as a society have been pretty much "doing things" the way your beliefs are..and..Ideally it should work, however, Realistically ITS JUST NOT WORKING..the merry go round needs to stop and the freeloaders (rich middle & poor who feel "entitled") need to get off and take responsibility for themselves and the families they have created and not rely on "the people" for a hand out be it for whatever reason.....

This is is the last I will be posting..not for sake of surrender so much as I think we have beat this subject to death and still butt heads in certain areas..but I respect your right to free speech which might I add was defended by our defense lol

Maybe we missed our calling to be in politics..wouldn't doubt we would get more done than the corrupt idiots there now!

FROM Neil Moakley at 10:00am July 11

JP,

Sorry--I'm pretty sure one of us would have to dress as a lady, and I don't feel like shaving.

I agree with you that the money available FOR education isn't spend in the best ways. As I said earlier in this thread, I think the system is fundamentally broken. But in terms of where the money comes *from*, which is ABS's complaint, I don't have any ideas for how we can do better. I just know that charging tuition is a TERRIBLE idea, for the reasons I outlined above and more.

ABS,

Seriously? If you don't see what's wrong with using "college boy" as a half-joking pejorative...if you don't see what's wrong with privileging your limited personal experience over the rest of the knowledge and experience out there...then we don't have much left to talk about. That's a kind of anti-intellectualism that makes me sick to my stomach, to assume that there's some down-home salt-of-the-earth "knowledge" that somehow trumps "all that book-learnin'". It's insulting that you would use words that suggest so.

The fact that you choose such an inopportune moment to unleash the "I know better because I was in the real world while you were in school" stereotype speaks volumes, too. The only "statistics" I cited were the metrics by which student performances are compared internationally...a topic YOU brought up.

I wish you wouldn't have used your last few posts as a jumping off point to complain excessively about freeloaders, pining for a non-existent "way things used to be", while misunderstanding my argument and denigrating the very educational system that we're discussing by suggesting that things like "going to college" or "using statistics" actually make an argument LESS sound.

Without that emotive rhetoric, I was enjoying the opportunity to discuss these ideas. Now I leave with a bad taste in my mouth, and the sense that you weren't paying attention to much that I said.

----

UPDATE: The following posts were added to the discussion since the initial draft of this blog entry:

FROM ABS at 8:32pm July 10

Ok one last encore..I wasn't trying to be too insulting however I felt you were being condescending with all your stats as someone who was "educated" as opposed to a person who has "hands on" experience"..from your reaction, I may have been right-moving forward..yes I am living it first hand and am currently viewing it from a second hand standpoint from people I deal with on a daily basis. You yourself just stated you didnt know a "solution" but stated Tuition was wrong...you dont know that if you dont have a solution...it just may be the solution or part of a solution...I would have expected better from you than to come to the table to discuss an issue without a solution..I did offer one and backed it up with my reason why..whether it be a good one or not I had an answer..when one can bring to the table not only their opinion as to why someone else's opinion is not a good one...have ready a good one that is more feasible. Until then discussing this subject further is a mute point.

Part of the problem with society is alot of people want something done to correct problems that arise in every situation, they will complain and fuss and be negative about ideas that dont meet their idealism of what should be...however...many of those same people never come to the table with a solution..I have learned from many of my higher ups in the chain of command to never come to the table with a problem and voice your opinion without the offer of a solution be it good or bad and if you dont have a solution to at least be quiet or have an open mind to at least try one that is offered without knocking it...especially when it hasnt been tested to see if it would work. If more families had to invest even a small amount of $$ I believe there would be more of an interest in the quality. I also believe anything just handed out is never quite as appreciated as something earned. I would like to think that most people would have pride and honor in something they had a hand in doing.

I was paying attention to what you said...however...you will not sway me from my beliefs which is I feel is your goal. Again not that I am not open for alternative options...but one would have to bring one to the table in the first place in order to have a starting point in which to present a case.

If and when you may have a real solution to bring...please let me know...until then I wish you well and I am done with this subject.

FROM Neil Moakley at 1:42am July 11

Hmm. I see now that we're not only far apart on the issue of how to fund public education, but on quite a few other pretty important things. I'm not going to take the bait on every oversimplification or mischaracterization that you squeezed into your last few posts, but I will bite on a few:

- This is the second time you've set up "being educated" and "having 'hands-on' experience" as oppositional. Is it really that hard to imagine that someone might be BOTH? Just because I don't share your point of view doesn't mean that I don't have an equally valid wealth of experience to draw from.

- The reason I don't have a "solution" is because I don't think the problem you've imagined actually exists. I think that the property tax system is a flawed-but-effective way of paying for schools.

- You're misapplying the "never come to the table without a solution" maxim. If there's a problem that it's conceivably your responsibility to develop a solution for, then yes, your higher-ups are right to want to hear creative ideas from you: even if they're not ultimately implemented. However

1. While brainstorming sessions benefit from being judgment free, there *is* such a thing as a "bad idea". I've been polite here, but you've done little to convince me that "pay for it yourself" public education isn't one of these.

2.More generally, the pointing-out of problems and the proposing of solutions do NOT have to come from the same place. Restaurants often have comment cards at the door. Would you, as a restaurant proprietor, throw out any comment card that said "the burgers were bland" if the author didn't provide an improved recipe? The job of improving the educational system falls primarily on our educators and elected officials, and economists are far better suited to an analysis of tax policy than we are. The fact that I am not qualified to propose a solution does NOT mean that I'm not qualified to illustrate potential problems.

3. You say you're interested in alternative options, but you really only mean "options that reduce MY burden to provide education funding." I think you SHOULD pay, as do most others. I haven't seen any evidence that your mind is open to *that* possibility.

So here's my real solution for you: we ought to revisit how money is allocated and spent for education, what is taught and by whom. We should absolutely NOT consider education funding to be the sole responsibility of those who are currently in the public school system. Universal or near-universal taxation for education is the right choice, just as it is for national defense, social security, and the NIH, among countless others.

I've made this conversation, with names obscured, available for comment on my website, as I'd like it to see a broader audience than just the three of us. You're welcome to comment there, as others already have. It can be found at the following link:

http://sn.im/itpaystolearn

----

UPDATE 2: The following posts were added to the discussion since the second draft of this blog entry:

FROM ABS at 11:29am July 11

Hahahaha I should have caught on sooner you were a ringer..I must be slipping..of course your now incorporating others to back you...I dont need to do so either on here or via a website and of course all your little groupies who side with you for a free ride must be getting one or planning on receiving one, will agree with your case..you say you were insulted but have no bones about insulting or involving others to join in on the insults of someone they dont know bringing up wrong scenarios of how one must be...I would have so much more to say..and not afraid to do so however I wont suffer fools...idealists like you and your cultist are what put this country where it is.

Print away so you can have all you want to stand behind you since you cant do this on your own but this is my final post:

-raise the sales tax to 10% so everyone is paying

-teachers that are overpaid (yes & most are extremely overpaid) go if they wont reduce their pay for the good of education and give the jobs to the ones out of college & out of work. Some of these teachers & admins make upwards of 60k to 150k & put the diff back into the schools, if you think the quality of ed will suffer by the new grads then you dont believe in your own education system

--retired folks pay 0

-folks 65 or under w/0 kids pay 1/3 to 1/2 of realty taxes

-young couples with kids should pay a percentage per child as yes I still believe any parent who refuses to pay even a small percentage to invest in their own children is the slacker and wants a free ride...why want someone else to pay for your child when you dont want to either (not talking about those in dire straights that absolutly cant pay)

Hard

There are so many more solutions to make paying for a good "free" education fair so that EVERYONE SHARES IN THE EXPENSE. Not just home owners...and by the way...all of you "entitled" people out there...there is no such thing as 'free"...someone else is always footing the bill one way or the other for you "entitled freeloaders"!

FROM Neil Moakley at 12:25pm July 11

Wow. Because I thought this debate deserved a wider audience than a single person's comment page, I'm now "a ringer" (as though that means anything!), and a "cultist" with "little groupies who side with [me] for a free ride". Overreaction much?

I have a few hundred connections here on Facebook, that I've formed through my life. I know all but a handful in real life, and their politics are spread throughout the spectrum, from crazy liberal to crazy conservative. These are the people that I invited to read and comment on my publicly available blog. What you think is me insecurely wanting others to "back my opinion" is actually me seeking a broader perspective than merely what one lady has to say.

I think your idea is a bad one that's been shown as an ineffective solution contrary to democratic ideals for more than two centuries. BUT...that doesn't mean I'm insulting you. Contrary to what you say above, that just hasn't been happening. If you disagree, please point out where it's happened.

As to your final final post (you should really stop saying that if you plan on coming back whenever I reply):

- As I already noted, sales taxes are more regressive than property taxes. Are you okay with the poor paying a greater share than the rich?

- Teachers are overpaid?? I'm not sure if you had much support to begin with, but I suspect you just lost some. If 60k doesn't seem a fair price to pay for experienced and talented teachers, I don't know what to tell you.

Here are some starting salaries for college graduates in 2008:

http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2008/06/job-market-for-2008s-college-graduates.html

And here is the salary table for the School District of Philadelphia

http://webgui.phila.k12.pa.us/offices/e/ee/information-center/offices/e/ee/resources/information-center/salary-schedule2

Starting salaries are in the middle-bottom of the pack. Sorry to use elitist "data" again.

- People without children already tend to pay less under a property tax system, because, correcting for neighborhood and economic situation, larger families live in larger properties.

- Senior citizens who are in financial need ALREADY have caps on the property taxes they pay.

- The average money spent per student per year in America is around $9500. The average effective property tax in Philadelphia is about 2.33% of market value, (or $5800 for a $250k home), of which slightly more than half goes to the school district. Without getting into the complications of inflation or discounting money to present value, this means that 13 years of education for two kids costs nearly $250,000. Most of your ideas have ignored the reality of these numbers. Even if making everyone pay for public education was a bad idea (it's not), it's financially untenable to shift the burden primarily to families of school-age children, as you suggest.

There's more to be said, but you've really stopped addressing anything I've written: I'm still waiting on a response on my criticism of your realism vs. idealism fallacy, or your suggestion that there's never any value to identifying problems if you don't also identify solution.

If you don't like the timbre of the conversation on my blog entry, by the way, you're welcome to post there and defend yourself. It is, as I've already mentioned, publicly accessible.

Fin, at least for now. I'll update this post if there's more. Thoughts?

Not everything should be easy.

noreply@blogger.com (Neil) — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 19:01:00 +0000

A friend from a former job writes the following:

If you know yourself, you know the things at which you excel and the things at which you don't.

If you're lucky, you'll find yourself doing things that you find easy. If you're really, really lucky, you'll find yourself doing easy things that make you happy. Sometimes, rare individuals find themselves happy doing things they find extremely difficult. These last individuals are either delusional, self-indulgent or both. (I would argue that those who boast that they are happy facing challenges are not really being all that challenged, but I digress).

I do not agree. Follow the link to the full post, with my comments and his responses.

To thine own self be true

Atheist Pride, Part II

noreply@blogger.com (Neil) — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:33:00 +0000

This is the second part of a two-part series about "I am an Atheist", a Facebook pride day for nonbelievers. All day today, March 20, atheists on Facebook will stand up to be counted. You'll be able to find thousands of us as we change our status messages and pictures to proudly proclaim "I am an atheist". Think of this small gesture as a virtual "Pride Day" for nonbelievers throughout the world.

Join us today at http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=88239290014

In Part One, I gave some of my reasons for being a part of this event, and put forward some ideas that I hope theists will read and consider

In Part Two below, I want to address some things I've heard from some members of the atheist community in response to putting together an event like this.

"My friends already know I'm atheist"

A pride day is not just about coming out of a closet. As I wrote in part one, the strength to say for the first time "I am different" can be hard to muster. Atheists who raise the objection above have already been through this trial: their nonbelief is a matter of public record.

But are our memories that short? Surely we can recall feeling alone or scared or angry or something when we first came to face our new understanding of the world. Those of us who are "out" have a duty to be a part of the support structure for those yet to join us. The more we make clear that there is a strong, supportive atheist community out here, the more we can assuage the fears of others.

"I don't want my friends to know I'm atheist"

I don't think people who've said this really mean it. Instead, I think it's something more like

"I don't want my friends to judge me unfairly for being an atheist. I don't want to get into any fights about my atheism."

...and I understand. It is hard to realize that someone we thought was a friend predicated that relationship on a lie. It's hard to realize that someone we thought respected us no longer does.

And it can be even harder to watch as friends and loved ones we respect seem to move further and further away from reason as they begin to wield their beliefs like a weapon whenever we're around. I get it, it's tough.

But is what you're saying really "I don't want to do this because it will be tough to deal with the consequences"? We need to--atheism is a core to our philosophical beliefs and our moral actions. Our lack of belief is a driving force behind many of our major life decisions. I can't content myself with a world where I had to hide integral parts of myself just to make the day go by a little more easily; neither should you.

"I don't want to rub my atheism in anyone's face"

As you just read, I will advocate strongly for the need for atheists to use their backbones and say "we're here, we're a part of your life, we're not going anywhere", and it's equally important to say "we're not bad people, we don't need to be changed". Note though that none of this is about imposing our beliefs on others.

I truly think that religious followers are mistaken in their beliefs, and I will gladly engage in endless conversation and debate about this.

But that's for tomorrow.

Tomorrow, we can go back to saying "I think you're wrong"--though I would ask you all to do it in as respectful a way as you can. But today we simply say "I think you're wrong to think us lesser"

That's not "rubbing it in". If today my status message read "Neil is proud to be a teacher" or "Neil is proud to be an Eagles fan", no one would think I was trying to impose these things on others. Why so worried when it's about belief?

"This won't work; assembling atheists is like herding cats"

It turns out that when you're willing to question religious belief--the heart of many people's lives--you're willing to question just about anything. Perhaps for that reason, atheists tend to be very independent of spirit and diverse in their personal, political, and "religious" thoughts. I fiercely value my independence, and will fight in word and action to defend it when necessary.

But there's a big difference between being independent and being stubborn. It's silly and naive to think that because you and I are both independent spirits, we have little in common. In fact, some of our commonalities are likely to be caused by this independence.

Nonbelievers resistant to group affiliation seem to misunderstand this point. I'm standing together with more than 4,000 of my fellow atheists today--do you think we all get along? Do you think we all necessarily like each other?

That's all besides the point! In life, we go our separate ways; some of our paths will converge, and some will not. But we are all united by our rejection of the supernatural, a decision that has implications that we all must deal with--even if we do so in different ways.

As to the original saying: we aren't herding cats. We're asking cats to meow--to make it clear to the world that they're cats.

As it turns out, cats do that.

"Doesn't this turn atheism into a religion?"

No.

I confess that I've never fully understood this objection. Clearly, this event does not turn atheism into a religion. We're not imposing any beliefs, traditions, or dogma. We're not asking you to tithe; we're not asking you to conform.

To revisit my earlier example: if I got all the Philadelphia Eagles fans on Facebook together to turn their profiles green for a day and proclaim "I am an Eagles fan", have I created a religion devoted to my local sports team? Absurd!

Here's the point: "Religion" does not equal "community".

Any atheist who has moved away from religion solely because they don't like all the "meeting on Sundays" may have a point. Fortunately, I think that kind of atheist is a fiction.

Community is a good thing! It unites us in common purpose and allows our voices to carry further. It allows us to carry out acts that would be beyond the means of one person acting alone.

There are plenty of things to find objectionable in most religions. But soup kitchens, community outreach, church philanthropy? These are all examples that we, the atheist community, should aspire to. I say again, it is possible to maintain our independence of thought while uniting to further a common good.

"This won't accomplish anything"

It is beyond debate that the gay pride movement has done much to advance the cause of equality. Our young atheist pride movement is often consciously mirrored off this movement. Things like our Facebook event, the Out Campaign, or the Coming Out Godless project may be little steps, but they are steps forward. As more people join, our message grows louder and our prospects for getting the word out next year increase even more.

You know, one of the nastier stereotypes about atheists is that we are simply selfish, lazy hedonists, denying god so that we can more easily reject morality and responsibility. When I hear atheists say things like "meh, that seems like a lot of work" to the idea of changing their status message, or "I don't want to be a part of any group", well...I start to understand where that stereotype comes from.

We can do better! Skepticism does not need to equal cynicism. For any nonbelievers who think this event to be a waste of time, I urge you to consider carefully both parts of my message and contrast the effects with the minimal effort that participating requires.

Part One, on why the principle of this event is important

Atheist Pride, Part I

noreply@blogger.com (Neil) — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 04:33:00 +0000

This is the first part of a two-part series about "I am an Atheist", a Facebook pride day for nonbelievers. All day today, March 20, atheists on Facebook will stand up to be counted. You'll be able to find thousands of us as we change our status messages and pictures to proudly proclaim "I am an atheist". Think of this small gesture as a virtual "Pride Day" for nonbelievers throughout the world.

Join us today at http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=88239290014

UPDATE: "I am an Atheist", our first annual awareness event / pride day for nonbelievers on Facebook, has been a great success, as thousands of nonbelievers joined together to celebrate our cause. If you are interested in joining us in exploring ways to make this event even bigger and better in the future, join us at

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=59743874259

Whether you are religious, secular, or irreligious, I hope you'll take the time to read some of my thoughts today on the significance of this event to me, and what I think events like it can mean in the future for the atheist community.

In Part One below, I will try to answer the question "Why have an atheist pride day?"

In Part Two, I will address some questions raised about this event by the atheist community.

WHY HAVE AN ATHEIST PRIDE DAY?

Atheists are a part of your life

There are likely between 125 million and 250 million self-proclaimed atheists living in the world today. Nearly another billion identify as non-religious. (And that's not including China!) The United States alone is home to more than 12 million atheist or agnostic citizens, and another 36 million non-religious.

Let's put that in perspective. That's as many atheist or agnostic Americans as there are Mormon AND Jewish Americans together; that's six times the number of Muslim Americans, or ten times the number of Hindu Americans.

Here's what I hope you take from these numbers: of the dozens of people you already interact with every day, many are nonbelievers. We're a cognitive minority; you can't tell us by looking. And--and this is important--you can't tell us by our behavior.

I'll talk more about atheist stereotypes later, but know now that "atheist" describes what we don't believe, not what we do. Atheists can be found among the ranks of philanthropists, serial killers, and everyone in between. We have a wide range of personal moralities, political philosophies, and thoughts on the human condition. If you tell me you are Christian, I know nothing about whether you're a good person; if I tell you I'm a nonbeliever, you know just as little about me.

Atheists deserve the same respect and status as believers

Since September 11, Muslims have been unfairly stereotyped by many here in America and the rest of the "Western world". Historically, Jews have borne a similar burden. Cultural minorities such as Hispanics and African-Americans are also often maligned. Homosexual men and women are somtimes similarly thought of in insulting, simplistic terms.

Most of us, I hope, recognize that these stereotypes are insulting, dehumanizing, and simply wrong. They are all based around the notion of the "Insidious Other"--a minority operating within our midst who seeks to do us harm / irrevocably change our way of life / take advantage of us. These notions are horrific.

I should make clear: I am not suggesting that the way atheists are treated in America today is equivalent to the historic injustices these groups have faced. We are not denied respect or equality simply because of the way we look or some aspect of our biology, and we have not had to face the overt prejudice and violence that other oppressed minorities have.

However, we are still stereotyped and still held in suspicion by many of our neighbors and fellow citizens. "They can't be trusted," some say, "where's their morality?"

Look at the numbers here. If you haven't seen them before, you may be surprised:

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheitsHated.htm
http://www.asanet.org/cs/root/topnav/press/atheists_are_distrusted
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/black_president_more_likely_than_mormon_or_atheist_/

The full UMN study referenced is no longer easily available online, but here are some things to take away:

53% of Americans surveyed would not vote for a presidential candidate under any circumstances if he was an atheist. Compare this with 43% for homosexuals, 11% for women, and 5% for black candidates.

39.6% of Americans said atheists "[do] not at all agree with my vision of American society". Compare that to 26.3% for Muslims, 22.6% for homosexuals.

47.6% of Americans said "I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry [an atheist]". Compare this to 33.5% for Muslims, 27.2% for African-american, and 11.8% for Jews.

Why? Study after study has shown that religious affiliation has essentially ZERO correlation to moral behavior.

People tend to trust what's familiar and distrust what's foreign. It's why on one scale Christians are comfortable with their own but suspicious of Muslims, and it's why on another scale believers are suspicious of those without belief.

This distrust of "the other" may be part of human nature, but it's wrong and it's harmful. I just don't know how to shout this any louder.

Christianity can be used to justify good deeds, but it's also been used to justify atrocities. The same can easily be said for almost any religious belief, and the same is true for NO religious belief.

Before writing us off as amoral or immoral hedonists, consider reading some of the great defenses of atheist morality that exist. Here are some starting points:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/more-moral.html
http://www.daylightatheism.org/series/on-the-morality-of

You may disagree with some of the notions, but don't doubt that for many of us nonbelievers, morality is a serious subject, central to our being.

Dispelling myths about atheism

So atheists aren't immoral by nature. What else are we, or aren't we? That question doesn't have much of answer, because atheism isn't a system of belief.

Atheism really just means "without god" or "without religion". The word tells you what atheists are not, but it doesn't really say what atheists are.

Some atheists say they know there is no supernatural cause, no god. Others say that it's impossible to know that kind of thing, but that they believe there's no god.

Some nonbelievers dislike the term atheism and prefer agnosticism. Others dislike agnosticism and prefer atheism. In fact, many atheists are very exacting with their definitions. Get three of us in a room, and you'll probably come out with four labels.

All of the words you may have heard--ALL of them--have more than one interpretation. Atheist, Agnostic, Agnostic Atheist, Deist, Panentheist, Pantheist, etc. You may be interested in exploring some of these terms at the links below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

Some atheists subscribe to explicit philosophies of morality and ethics, while others really just follow the Golden Rule as much as possible. Most atheists are humanists--people who believe that ethics can be derived from purely human sources.

I would guess that most atheists would call themselves naturalists as well--people who believe that there is no "supernatural", and that all phenomena are explainable in principle solely through natural causes / laws.

Most atheists are outraged at any attempts by government or society to impose measures of faith on them. But we disagree amongst ourselves about what deserves that outrage.

Tests of faith for public office? We're angry.
A Christmas tree up in the city square? Some are angry, most aren't.
A crucifix up in the city square? We're angry.
"Under God" or "In God We Trust"? We're angry in principle, but most of us have been conditioned to ignore these phrases. The fact that we're used to them doesn't make them appropriate.

If I had to guess at some other trends, I would say that atheists are probably a bit more sensitive than the general population on issues of discrimination, since they are subtly discriminated against as well. The atheist population is probably more scientifically-minded, since the methods of science help flesh out a naturalist viewpoint.

But I'm not sure; there's just so many of us, from so many different backgrounds! There are atheists on the far left and right of the political spectrum. There are rich atheists and poor atheists and kind atheists and cruel atheists. Some of us are confrontational and others are not.

If you want to know who we are--and I hope you do--the best thing to do is just ask.

No one should have to live in the closet

So today is a day to stand up and say "I'm an atheist, and I'm proud". For people like me, this is an exercise in community and solidarity. For others, it may be an opportunity to take a bold, first step in acknowledging and declaring their personal beliefs. I want to help you understand how difficult this can be.

Think back to your childhood. Maybe you remember the exact day, or maybe not, but one morning many of you woke up and realized, "Wait! There is no Santa Claus!"

For some children, this moment may be crushing. "I loved Santa and relied on Santa to bring me presents if I was good and take pictures with me at the mall, and he's...gone! It was never true!"

That can be hard enough! A comforting blanket from our youth has been taken away, leaving us alone and vulnerable.

For atheists, it gets worse. Imagine that you share your new, scary conclusion with your parents or friends, and get these responses:

"What are you talking about? I see Santa every year!"
"That's crazy! Who do you think brings us presents!"
"Do you know how insulting that is to Santa Claus? You're on the naughty list for sure!"

Everywhere you go, people know Santa Claus exists. They look at you with scorn and confusion--something must be wrong with you, to deny Santa Claus. Do you hate Santa, is that why you would say such horrible things?

Is this the world you would want to face, or would you hope for honest conversation and acceptance, with people willing to discuss the existence of Santa with you without getting angry, without condemning you? Even if you're wrong about Santa, you deserve more respect than what you've been given.

Millions of atheists have to face this world. Imagine being in that position. You don't have to agree with us, but please, sympathize!

The social pressures against standing up to say "I don't think there is a god" can be immense! What if my friends won't speak to me anymore? What if everyone I know thinks I'm going to hell? What if people look at me suspiciously for the rest of my life?

Again, I say: I'm not asking you to agree with our philosophy. But what kind of faith is so weak that a dissenting voice must be ostracized, must be mocked, must be tormented?

Today is for all of the people who've overcome those difficult situations, but it's also to tell those who are still closeted, still scared of the world that awaits their honesty: you are not alone.

Standing in solidarity with those who cannot

I just described the immense social pressures that a religious world places on the nascent atheist: pressures that can lead to guilt, hypocrisy, depression, and worse. And that's in America, an ostensibly free country.

Some countries require their citizens to declare a religious affiliation, or else they are denied rights. In Iran, Egypt, and elsewhere, citizens have been arrested for "atheistic beliefs".

There are only a small number of countries in which publicly acknowledged atheism isn't a severe handicap to something--public office, equal rights; sometimes even maintaining freedom itself.

The burden on atheists in these places to keep from coming forward is severe. It's no wonder that more don't. So today is also about these silent atheists, oppressed by circumstance and unable to break free. Because they cannot stand, we stand for them.

Part Two, answering some objections raised by fellow atheists

25 Things

noreply@blogger.com (Neil) — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 22:55:00 +0000

A copy of my "25 Things" meme that's been making the rounds through Facebook.

Rules: Once you've been tagged, you are supposed to write a note with 25 random things, facts, habits, or goals about you. At the end, choose 25 people to be tagged. You have to tag the person who tagged you. If I tagged you, it's because I want to know more about you.

(To do this, go to “notes” under tabs on your profile page, paste these instructions in the body of the note, type your 25 random things, tag 25 people (in the right hand corner of the app) then click publish.)

01. I take just about any opportunity to be introspective, and I tend to talk a lot.

After your second hour of reading this, you'll see what I mean.

ODDS AND ENDS
02. I take lots of pictures.

A life and a half ago, back in middle school, I had a basic class in black and white photography. A few years ago I decided to start taking pictures again; I'm not very good at it, but I enjoy the process.

These days, I shoot with a Nikon D90 and a Panasonic LX3. I have a Flickr photostream, found here:

http://sn.im/neilphoto

03. I enjoy studying languages, though I never make the progress I hope to.

If trying to impress people, it would sound like this: I studied Hebrew for seven years and Spanish for five, can communicate fairly well in Japanese and dabble in a few other languages.

If trying to sound more realistic: Despite spending a lot of time trying to learn other languages, I'm fluent in nothing but my native tongue. I can read and write Hebrew, but can't speak it. I can read and write Japanese about as well as a native—if that native were four years old. Despite living in France for half a year, I can barely order dinner in the language.

But I keep trying. Again, I like the process.

04. I've traveled more abroad than in the United States.

From a traveler's perspective, I've been pretty fortunate. I've spent two weeks in Israel; about the same in China. I spent a summer semester in Japan, lived and studied in France for half a year, and vacationed twice in the Netherlands. And I guess the cruise I went on in high school kind of counts.

Here in the states, though, my life is pretty restricted to the northeast corridor. I've lived in New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Washington DC, and vacationed in New Jersey, Delaware, and Florida. Everywhere else I've been has just been a day trip or a flyover.

05. I'm almost certainly better than you at Rock Band and Guitar Hero.

Because it's a competitive sport, right? But seriously...if you've got a problem that can only be solved with fake plastic guitars, you know where to find me.

06. I fought a mugger once, and won, I guess.

Because it's a competitive sport, right?

Since starting college, I've lived in a few not-so-great areas in a number of cities, but I've only been mugged once--in Society Hill, of all places.

I was carrying a laptop bag with me, and I was kind of attached to the contents, and I was in kind of a miserable mood, so...yeah.

Some lessons learned:

Don't fight muggers, it's stupid. I got to keep my stuff because luck of the draw got me a schmuck who only PRETENDED to have a gun. If I had been a moron with the wrong angry guy, I'd be dead. "Stuff" isn't worth "dead".
Fighting hurts. I'd fought plenty before—on mats in a dojo, or messing around with friends. This was different. I actually hurt someone, and he actually hurt me. Neither of those things is too enjoyable once the adrenaline fades.

That laptop died like a week later and needed to be replaced anyway. Go figure.

07. I don't know how to drive. I never learned.

Long story.

Ok, not really. After high school, I just never bothered. Lived in cities pretty continuously, it's always been optional, never a necessity. And that's that.

I know, I know: I ought to learn. I keep meaning to. But let me tell you, a life without ever worrying about gas prices is pretty nice.

08. I think smoking is good for me.

Not my health, of course; don't be silly—that shit will kill you. But as a stimulant, a stress reliever, and a social lubricant (in certain circles), cigarettes do more than their fair share of good.

I stopped smoking last year for non-lung-related health reasons. I don't miss the smell, the cost, or the social marginalization (in other certain circles), but I do miss the sense of intellectual clarity they brought. For that reason alone, I can't guarantee that I won't smoke again, should the rest of my physical well-being allow it.

WHO I'VE BEEN

09. It took me a really long time to figure out how to interact with people.

So much so, in fact, that I sometimes feel like a bit of a fraud here on Facebook. If you're on that long list of people I haven't seen or spoken with since high school, it would be dishonest to say I knew many of you all that well, or vice versa.

To be honest, that's the heart of a selfish reason I had for helping to organize our ten-year reunion: to take another chance to engage with the people I grew up with, now that I'm so much closer to the person I want to be.

For those of you GWHS alum who didn't make it, maybe there'll be another pretense for dinner and drinks before our 20-year comes around...

10. College didn't really go as planned.

That's not entirely accurate. I went into college without a plan. I went into grad school without a plan. Hell, I went into Super Bowl Sunday without much of a plan.

That lack of a plan led to some very good experiences—some great classes I never would have taken had I been more "focused", some great people I never would have met—but it was also the cause of a lot of grief. The grief and the good times add up to two undergraduate schools with five majors (one completed), two graduate programs with three focuses (two completed), and...

11. Staggering student loan debt.

For the rest of my life, all my major plans and decisions must be tempered by monthly loan payments that exceed the cost of a reasonable mortgage.

If knowledge and experience had a return policy, I wouldn't use it: in a sense, I got what I paid for. But it's still troubling how much the decisions of my 18-21 year old self have handcuffed me.

12. If I never see another executive summary or powerpoint presentation again, it will be too soon

The grad program I finished was an MBA /MS program. After finishing, I worked as a consultant / analyst for a few years. The time I was self-employed was stressful and depressing, and the time I spent working for a small pharma consulting firm did nothing but teach me, by virtue of their absence, the value of a functioning HR department and engaged management.

The trappings of that world—the pie charts unrepresentative of anything, the status quo market research posing as something grander, entrepreneurs predatorially seeking JUST enough funding to cash out—don't appeal to me even a little bit.

In retrospect, I probably could have learned that lesson for less than the cost of two masters degrees. At least I got to see Paris. :)

13. My childhood wasn't exactly filled with "father figures."

My father left my family when I was nine or ten, not counting the occasional spiteful custody battle. Despite this being largely responsible for number 09, above, I think I'm a better person for it. More on this later.

My mother remarried when I was in high school. I got in a few one-sided fistfights with that guy, which were pretty fun, but otherwise, he was a petty, miserable person to have around.

Glad to report that she's been happily remarried to a decent human being for a while now, but that happened as I was graduating college.

So yeah, not many fathers around...

14. ...but I had a wonderful "grandfather figure" instead.

Fortunately, my mom's parents stepped in to help out with the hard stuff. If I was ever embittered and antisocial as an adolescent, it may have in part been due to my father. But if I've ever been friendly, funny, smart, curious, or caring since, it's in large part due to my grandfather.

And if you've ever eaten my unapologetically delicious not-quite-an-omelet breakfast—the only food I can reasonably prepare—you have him to thank for teaching me that as well.

My grandfather died last year after an unexpected, but thankfully brief, battle with cancer. I miss him.

15. I have developed a strange habit of modifying my grooming habits in response to death.

Except for the short time when I grew my hair out to match my flannel shirts, I visited the same barber since I was eight years old.

When I returned from Paris, I learned that he died of pancreatic cancer just a month before. Crestfallen, but in need of a haircut, I bounced around the ladies at the Chop Shop for a few unhappy years.

For whatever reasons, I'm happier now that I cut my own hair; it's pretty easy since I've gone short and utilitarian with it. But if you're ever wondering why it's ever just a bit too long in the back, well...that's why.

A more conscious decision came about when my grandfather died. The man had a face made of sandpaper, and generally insisted on kisses where his cheeks would scratch the healthiest of lips. To my knowledge, he never actually shaved—just used the electric trimmer to get it real short.

Which is, for the last year, what I have done as well—no razors. Blond hair means you can't see it, but...my cheeks serve as both a weapon and a memory!

WHO I AM

16. I am very smart.

I thought a lot about this list item: how arrogant or pretentious it might sound. I decided to include it because of the singular impact this little fact has had on my life. NOTHING has affected me more.

My last real IQ test puts me five deviations to the right of normal. What does this mean? It means I learn things well, and I understand things fast. It means that I can be a useful member of your trivia team if you're trying to win free drinks.

But it also means that my "off button" is critically broken. It means I have trouble relaxing, I have trouble "enjoying". I have to fight a perpetual dissatisfaction, an aching feeling that any given moment I ought to be "doing more", whatever that means.

It can also be incredibly socially isolating—lonely. So if you think I'm a jerk for even mentioning this list item, you can take some comfort in that. Jerk.

17. I don't believe in a god, many gods, or anything else supernatural, nor do I trust in the concept of faith.

I've probably been functionally atheist since I was about 11 or 12 years old, though I couldn't really articulate the idea until much later—nor did I really embrace the label and its attached baggage until adulthood.

I don't like to be needlessly inflammatory, so this won't turn into a treatise on personal philosophy. But I love the inteligent discussion that can emerge from theological debate, and welcome anyone interested in a dialogue to contact me.

18. I am constantly learning.

Not just in that "life experiences" kind of way. I take advantage of any opportunity I can to fill in the gaps in my knowledge and further my understanding of...stuff.

Practically, that means I spend a lot of time reading and listening to podcasts and courses online. Recent focuses include geopolitics, philosophy of ethics, political philosophy, history, music, and skeptical inquiry.

Let me know if you want reading or listening recommendations. :)

19. My personal politics are grounded in pragmatic ethical obligations and guarantees of personal freedom. In the modern United States, this makes me a progressive liberal.

If I could fill a conversation with religious debate, I could fill a book with a deeper discussion of this statement. I choose to present it without further comment, but again—I welcome any dialog on the subject.

20. I spend an awful lot of time thinking about ethics and morality.

Seriously. My subconscious is perpetually jumping from one poorly-conceived thought experiment to another.

I'm most interested in

personal ethical codes and conduct: what are the causes of "moral" behavior, and to that extent moral standards are subjective
the moral obligations of political systems--how far does the social contract extend, to whom, and at what permissible cost?

WHO I WANT TO BE

21. Teaching is the first job I've had that has felt right.

I've worked at least on weekends since I was 14. I've been a great employee and a terrible employee, and I've been promoted and fired. But I'd never really *enjoyed* my job until I started teaching.

Right now, I teach GMAT prep courses for a great company managed by smart people who treat me well. I couldn't ask for much more from an employer, but it's the actual teaching, lesson planning, and thinking about pedagogy that is the best part. In the near future, I plan to return to school so that I can begin a long-term career in education.

22. I enjoy writing, even if I don't have the discipline to pursue longer projects.

Four-mile-long facebook essays don't count as "longer projects." This note goes on and on, sure, but that's how I like my blog entries—unedited and a little bit rambly. Like a conversation, complete with the "um"s and "ah"s.

I carry an Alphasmart NEO with me most places I go (NaNoWriMo people should know what that is, click here if you don't). At any given time I have three or more different files on it languishing in my own personal equivalent of development hell. I constantly revisit them, expanding old story ideas or exploring new directions an essay can take, but everything I write seems to stay in outline or treatment form forever. I don't know what's wrong with me.

23. Everyone has fears and concerns about starting a family, but mine might be a little different...

This dilemma might sound strange, but this is what keeps me up nights:

I'm as flawed as the next guy, but all in all I'm pretty happy with how I turned out. The problem is many of the traits that I like most about myself were crucible-borne, emerging from the hardships of my childhood. Spending a good deal of time as a poor kid from a single-parent home shaped me in some very positive ways. It was a long time in coming, but I don't see how I could have come to have the confidence and independence of spirit that I have today without those trials.

So how to impart those same lessons in a visceral way to another generation *without* forcing them to endure the same hardships? I'm really not sure.

24. I've thought about moving elsewhere, but I'll always be a Philadelphian first.

I know, some of my credentials are suspect; (Q: What's the difference between the Far Northeast and South Jersey? A: Liquor prices and full-service gas), but I've been living in town for more than six years since finishing college, and I can't imagine a place more like home.

All the places I've lived and visited abroad have been great, and I hope that I have the opportunity to revisit those experiences. But I will always be more at home with cheesesteaks and football than crepes and futbol.

25. I still absurdly, naively, want to make a difference.

And not just to a handful of "starfish", but in some broad, fundamental way. Hubris!

Thanks for reading.