The Boston Atheists Blog

4/25: Mary Roach award ceremony at Harvard

noreply@blogger.com (Zachary Bos) — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 20:23:00 +0000

Letter re: town meeting prayer in Sandwich

noreply@blogger.com (Zachary Bos) — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 14:59:00 +0000

This letter has just been emailed by Jane Logan to the Sandwich Board of Selectmen and Town Manager:

Selectmen and Women:

Starting the Town Meeting, or any official Town event, with an invocation / prayer is a violation of the separation of Church and State.

In a Supreme Court ruling Justice Stevens wrote " the delivery of a prayer (at a public event) has the improper effect of coercing those present to participate in an act of religious worship.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State." Thomas Jefferson.

Citizens should not have to participate in a religious act to participate in Democracy.

Please uphold the separation of church and State and do not commence Town Meeting or any official Town event with a prayer.

I would appreciate a response as soon as possible prior to the May 2012 Town Meeting.

Thinking about "Rethinking Heaven"

noreply@blogger.com (Zachary Bos) — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 11:35:00 +0000

When I saw headline "Rethinking Heaven" on the cover of the April 16th issue of Time magazine, I thrilled at the possibility that a mainstream publication might have taken a critical position against the unimaginative but widespread conception of an eternal afterlife defined by a cumulus set-pieces and a golden halo on every head.

I was mistaken; rather than adopting a skeptical outlook, author Jon Meacham addresses contemporary believers with both a corrective view -- citing affable scholars of religion to remind readers that the New Testament doesn't describe a heaven-in-the-clouds -- and an aspirational one: "What if Christianity is not about enduring this sinful, fallen world in search of eternal rest? What if God brings together heaven and earth in a new, wholly redeemed creation?"

On the one hand, this article is a believer's argument that Christians would do well to rein in some of the more excessive and unfounded aspects of their belief in heaven. On the other hand, this apparent return to a less decadent and more exegetically sound soteriology seems like an attempt to reconcile ideas that aren't compatible. I wonder, if we left the pop theology conception of heaven intact, whether we wouldn't be giving believers an easier job of seeing the ethical problems and logical imponderables inherent in the Christian definitions of eternity and redemption.

In the way that sunlight is the best disinfectant, we might think of absurdity as the best alarm bell. To a Christian who thinks that "heaven" is really about rolling up our sleeves and creating the best life for as many people as possible here and now, the skeptic's view that there's no such thing as heaven seems like a sad misunderstanding. "Oh, clouds and harps? That's a caricature, man! If you had a more sophisticated and orthodox understanding of my religion, you'd see how much sense the idea of heaven really makes." But the Christian who thinks that good behavior earns you a ticket to that everlasting wispy resort named Heaven, is wearing their cognitive dissonance on their sleeve. Those are ideas you can lay out, side by side, for a comparison to modern ideas of morality and cosmology.

Friendly arguments, like the one Jon Meacham presents in this article, present a stealth threat. An irrational and superstitious belief like "heaven" becomes easier to hold if its given an ad hoc makeover, and shorn of the more baroque details. If the evidence is considered without first making a commitment to belief in supernatural entities, Christians have every bit as much epistemological warrant for believing in Pearly Gates and angel choirs as they do for thinking of heaven as something God calls on us to create in the here-and-now. It isn't more rational to believe in this latter idea of heaven; it's simply easier.

Here's my question for rethinking heaven: What if heaven isn't a reasonable thing to believe in? A pithy and urgent saying of Madalyn Murray O'Hair comes to mind: "An Atheist accepts that heaven is something for which we should work now, here on earth, for all men together to enjoy." The important difference between this view and that expressed in Meacham's article, is that there's no reference to the intention of a higher power. It isn't that "heaven is something for which we should work now, here on earth, because my god wishes it"; rather, "heaven is something for which we should work now, here on earth, because that is the more attractive option."

3/28/2012 Secular Mass Newsletter

noreply@blogger.com (Zachary Bos) — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 18:45:00 +0000

The listing of links and commentary which follows is a roughly-weekly compilation of items of likely interest to skeptics, atheists, and humanists in Massachusetts and the area. The range of topics is typically diverse: politics, humor, research, culture. Feel free to suggest items for inclusion in the next mailer, by writing to "zbos" at atheists.org. Let me know if you prefer not to receive this mailing. -- Zachary Bos, MA State Director for American Atheists

Secular Mass on Meetup and Facebook | Boston Atheists on Meetup and Facebook

Events in our Area

TOMORROW, March 29, 2012: The Disproof Atheism Society will present "Abraham, Job, & Jesus: The Bible’s Attack on Reason", a discussion in support of the Reason Rally in DC, based on N. Zangwill, 'The Myth of Religious Experience,' and M. Piper, “Why Theists Cannot Accept Skeptical Theism.” In Room 442 of the BU Photonics Center, 8 St. Mary’s St., Boston. Free & open to all. For more information, email DASociety@aol.com.
April 1, 2012: Boston Atheists John McCargar will convene a book club discussion on the new book from physicist Lawrence Krauss, A Universe from Nothing. Join the conversation at Blue State Coffee, 957 Commonwealth Ave, Boston, at noon. If you don't have a copy, but would like to take a look, reply to this newsletter message by email and I'll get a sample chapter into your hands. RSVP at Meetup.com.
April 4, 2012: At the Concord Area Humanists Wednesday dialogue this week, naturalist and author Peter Alden will be speaking about "Changes in Flora and Fauna from Thoreau's Day to Today." Social at 7 PM, program at 7:30, in the First Parish church building, 20 Lexington Road, Concord. To help planning, RSVP by email with "ALDEN" in subject line.
April 15, 2012: 3rd Sunday Luncheon/Discussion Program, sponsored by the Greater Boston Humanists. Harvard Kennedy School Fellows Laila Atshahn and Dina Kraft will speak about "The Impact on Women of Fundamentalism in Israel/Palestine". To take place in the Phillips Brooks House Parlor; free buffet lunch at noon, lecture to begin at 1 PM. To RSVP, contact Tom Ferrick.

Articles of Interest, and Other Items of Note

TWO HOURS OF ATHEISM. This past Sunday, the MSNBC show "Up with Chris Hayes" took an in-depth look at atheism in America and its role in politics, global warming, and the culture of belief. Among the guests were Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker, Jamila Bey, and Susan Jacoby.

BECK'S THE BLAZE REPORTS ON RALLY. "Now, at 16% of the American population, Atheists feel they are poised to effect change in the halls of America’s institutions, actively lobbying congress on issues most important to them. One current push is to dismantle any protections in place that would prevent religious employers from covering the cost of contraception to its employees per Obamacare’s controversial mandate." From http://www.theblaze.com/stories/you-and-god-are-under-attack-beck-breaks-down-atheism-and-the-religious-left. Related: Video interviews of attendees at the Rally, ; and The Blaze's report on the Secular Coalition of America's lobby training session.

FAITH AS BOTH PLAYACTING AND BELIEF. Joan Acocella, for The New Yorker, reviews a new book by ethnographer T.M. Luhrmann, When God Talks Back: Understanding the American Evangelical Relationship with God. She writes:

Luhrmann warns us against calling the evangelicals' visions and voices 'hallucinations'; that is a psychiatric and, hence, pathologizing term. In her vocabulary, such events are 'sensory overrides'—sensory perceptions that override material evidence. [...] And she reports a vision of her own, which she had while working with the English witches. One morning, she woke up and saw six Druids looking at her through her window. (She lived on an upper floor.) In a moment, they were gone, and that was the only vision she ever had, but she has no doubt that she truly saw them.

All this hinges on what is meant by 'truly,' which, since Luhrmann, who is fifty-three, was educated in the time of postmodern theory, is not a straightforward matter. She says that the Vineyarders know that their 'faith practice'—their date nights with God, their asking him for a red convertible—is, in some measure, playacting. At the same time, they see it as a way of encountering God. She later adds, 'The playfulness and paradox of this new religiosity does for Christians what postmodernism, with its doubt-filled, self-aware, playful intellectual style, did for intellectuals. It allows them to waver between the metaphorical and the literal.'

JIMMY CARTER LEAVES CHURCH. The former President Jimmy Carter has decided to abandon his long-time affiliation with the Southern Baptist Church, in view of church leaders' prohibition on women being ordained and insistence that wives be subservient role to husbands. He writes: "The truth is that male religious leaders have had -- and still have -- an option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate women. They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the latter. Their continuing choice provides the foundation or justification for much of the pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world."

ATHEIST LOGO NOT ALLOWED. A consumer wanted his custom credit card image to be the "red A" of atheism; Capital One told him that's not allowed (but Christian crosses are pre-approved).

NAP SCHOLARSHIPS ANNOUNCED. The National Atheist Party, to encourage the expansion of knowledge and the principles of secular humanism, has announced the creation of two scholarship programs: the "Our Secular Future Scholarship" and the "Science Steps Forward Scholarship". Two awards of $1,000 will be awarded in each scholarship program to a college student and a high school student. College level submission deadline: November 1st, 2012. High school level submission deadline: March 1st, 2013.

A HEATHEN MANIFESTO. Thank you to BA member Jenna D. for bringing to our attention this article by Julian Baggini in The Guardian, where he lays out his 12 rules for heathens:

The so-called 'new atheism' may have put us on the map, but in the public imagination it amounts to little more than a caricature of Richard Dawkins, which is not an accurate representation of the terrain many of us occupy. We now need something else.

This manifesto is an attempt to point towards the next phase of atheism's involvement in public discourse. It is not a list of doctrines that people are asked to sign up to but a set of suggestions to provide a focus for debate and discussion. Nor is it an attempt to accurately describe what all atheists have in common. Rather it is an attempt to prescribe what the best form of atheism should be like.

DID YOU KNOW ABOUT...

... the Cambridge-Somerville Secular Buddhists? This secular meditation group is open to people, from beginners to experienced meditators, who want to practice and to discuss their meditation practice with others. It is intended to connect people of diverse backgrounds who want to explore mindfulness practice. Learn more at Meetup.com.

A bit of aht...

Singer/songwriter Shelley Segal -- maybe you saw her perform at the Reason Rally this weekend? -- has released the first single, "Saved", from her debut CD, An Atheist Album. A taste of the lyrics:

Say that i need to be saved
Say with me the devils got his way
I want to know how when you are praying
And when you are doomsdaying
How you think you know that someone is listening to what you are saying.

A quote in parting

Not even the visionary or mystical experience ever lasts very long. It is for art to capture that experience, to offer it to, in the case of literature, its readers; to be, for a secular, materialist culture, some sort of replacement for what the love of god offers in the world of faith. -- Salman Rushdie

SUPPORT SECULAR COMMUNITY-BUILDING IN 2012. Whether you want to be more involved in secular activism, defending educational standards, or resisting the encroachment of religious influences in public matters; whether you want the companionship of like-minded freethinkers, and a social scene where you can speak your mind without fear of censure; or whether you'd like to be involved in one of the aspirational community groups developing congregation-type programs for its members, there's no shortage of groups in the area that would benefit from your participation. For a listing of secular groups in MA and New England, visit http://bit.ly/wAzYLU -- and let me know if you know of any groups that should be added to the roll.

WORK WITH THE BOSTON ATHEISTS. The Boston Atheists would welcome volunteer organizers who want to plan events, write for the blog or newsletter, develop programs, and work to increase the benefits of group membership. Drop us a line if you'd like to find out how you can be a part of what's going on.

What does [Catholicism] think of atheists?

noreply@blogger.com (Zachary Bos) — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 13:08:00 +0000

This post is the first in a series which will document the official views of various religious denominations toward the worldviews of atheism and agnosticism.

The following text is taken from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and was brought to our attention by a recent email from Minnesota-based Catholic Philip Zehrer, president at "Scriptural Spiritual Direction & The Risen Jesus Still Heals and Reconciles Ministry". Over the past year, Philip has been calling and emailing atheist group leaders, including people here at the Boston Atheists. We appreciate that he's concerned about the state of our everlasting souls [sic], but gosh, we can think of better things he might have been doing with his time. He's on Twitter, which is not one of those better things.

As I'm not equipped or inclined to act the theologian, I've added only a very few comments in brackets and red text. What do YOU think of the Catholic view of things? Share your comments below. - ZWB

Atheism
2123 "Many . . . of our contemporaries either do not at all perceive, or explicitly reject, this intimate and vital bond of man to God. Atheism must therefore be regarded as one of the most serious problems of our time."⁵⁸
2124 The name "atheism" covers many very different phenomena [I couldn't agree more]. One common form is the practical materialism which restricts its needs and aspirations to space and time. Atheistic humanism falsely considers man to be "an end to himself, and the sole maker, with supreme control [That'd be a pretty naive "atheistic humanist", to think he has "supreme control" over anything. Something secular people come to terms with is how the complex interactions of manifold forces are actualy the authors of our "history". ], of his own history."⁵⁹ Another form of contemporary atheism looks for the liberation of man through economic and social liberation. "It holds that religion, of its very nature, thwarts such emancipation by raising man's hopes in a future life, thus both deceiving him and discouraging him from working for a better form of life on earth."⁶⁰
2125 Since it rejects or denies the existence of God [substitute "recognizes the incoherence or impossibility of" for "denies the existence of"], atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion.⁶¹ The imputability of this offense can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances. "Believers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism. To the extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith, or present its teaching falsely [That's it; I'm an atheist because I haven't read the Bible correctly], or even fail in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion."⁶²
2126 Atheism is often based on a false conception of human autonomy, exaggerated to the point of refusing any dependence on God.⁶³ Yet, "to acknowledge God is in no way to oppose the dignity of man, since such dignity is grounded and brought to perfection in God. . . . "⁶⁴ "For the Church knows full well that her message is in harmony with the most secret desires of the human heart [The idea that there is a single, compatible set of "secret desires" in the "human heart" denies dignity to human persons whose desires are incompatible.]."⁶⁵

Agnosticism
2127 Agnosticism assumes a number of forms. In certain cases the agnostic refrains from denying God; instead he postulates the existence of a transcendent being which is incapable of revealing itself, and about which nothing can be said. In other cases, the agnostic makes no judgment about God's existence, declaring it impossible to prove, or even to affirm or deny.
2128 Agnosticism can sometimes include a certain search for God [Which god?], but it can equally express indifferentism, a flight from the ultimate question of existence, and a sluggish moral conscience. Agnosticism is all too often equivalent to practical atheism.

_______________________
58 GS 19 § 1.
59 GS 20 § 2.
60 GS 20 § 2.
61 Cf. Rom 1:18.
62 GS 19 § 3.
63 Cf. GS 20 § 1.
64 GS 21 § 3.
65 GS 21 § 7.

An unfortunate scene in "Jack & Jill"

noreply@blogger.com (Zachary Bos) — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 13:05:00 +0000

Most of the scenes in Adam Sandler's recent film "Jack & Jill" were unfortunate, I know (the critics seem to agree). But I want to hold one scene up for particular consideration, because takes a thoughtless, mean-spirited swipe at atheism:

Jack (played by Adam Sandler): Did I ever tell you that Todd is an atheist?
Todd (Jack's underling): Oh god.
Jill (played by Sandler in drag): A WHAT?
Jack: Hehe, have a great time guys.
Jill: How could there be a Grand Canyon if God doesn't exist?
Todd: (stammering) That's a very good point. I'm just saying maybe...
Jill: Maybe God wouldn't have given you a rat-face if you believed in Him!
Todd: I don't have a rat-face.
Jill: Yes you do have a rat-face, it's scary!
John McEnroe (playing himself, popping into the conversation from the crowd): Whoa whoa whoa wait a minute, this guy doesn't believe in God?
Jill: No!
Todd: (stammering) I'm, I'm, I'm just saying that there's no real proof...
McEnroe: (yelling) IDIOTS like you really make me MAD!
Crowd members: FIGHT! (chanting in unison) Fight, fight, fight...
(More people in the crowd join the chant, but as a birthday cake is wheeled in, their chanting turns into the "Happy Birthday" song.)

I don't object at all to seeing my worldview satirized -- may the nonexistent God save us from self-serious people -- but what I see in this scene doesn't pass the substitution test. By which I mean: if you replace the role of the implied majority viewpoint with that of the implied minority viewpoint (here, theism and atheism respectively), does the resulting exchange seem just as comedic, or does it reveal a darker aspect?

Jill: Maybe you wouldn't look so ugly if you didn't believe in gods!
Todd: (stammering) I'm not ugly, I'm just saying...
John McEnroe: Whoa, whoa, whoa, this guy believes in gods? IDIOTS like you really make me MAD!

This isn't comedy arising out of cultural differences; it's antagonism made presentable by silliness. Thumbs down, Happy Gilmore Productions, for mixing prejudice with scatological humor. Though perhaps I can't call this a thoughtless mistake on the part of the folks behind the movie -- maybe it was actually a savvy business decision intended to attract a pro-theistic audience. The reviewers over at MovieGuide.com (" in-depth analyses of current movies from a biblical perspective") think this anti-atheist scene "makes belief in God look cool." Because cool is whatever Adam Sandler in drag is doing... ?

In other words, I think it's unfortunate that there's this bit of anti-atheist sentiment in a movie whose main business seems to be to affirming the value of family, and in making childish audiences laugh at fart jokes. Nothing wrong with those goals; why does prejudice need to be a part of it? To the people responsible, we might say: "Idiots like you really make me mad." Prejudice and the hostility it gives fuel to, when they reveal themselves in real life, don't just go away when someone shows up with cake for everyone.

*

I actually really like atheist jokes. Such as: "Why can’t atheists solve exponential equations? Because they don’t believe in higher powers." This is from the Harmonia Philosophica blog; find more here.

Tweets from the Cranston school committee meeting

noreply@blogger.com (Zachary Bos) — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:33:00 +0000

What follows is the Twitter report that I sent from my seat last night in the Cranston High School East auditorium, as residents of Cranston for and against an appeal in the case of Ahlquist v. Cranston. I intend to write a fuller account of my impressions of the evening -- the flashes of good will, the disturbing spectacle of hostility -- but it was a long night and that will have to wait.

These run in chronological order, from early in the evening to about 11 PM:

After 'they' sang God Bless America, 'we' sing America the Beautiful, are told to "GO HOME" #prayerbanner
Class of '63 wants to take religious words off mural, rather than remove it #prayerbanner
State rep wants appeal; because obviously majority of residents want it #prayerbanner
State rep says decision will lead to other attacks on constitution #prayerbanner
State rep says she's fought for rights... #prayerbanner
Speaker says there a place for this mural, but not in the school #prayerbanner
Speaker is being jeered for talking about being discriminated against #prayerbanner
The vilification of atheists represents a lack of compassion #prayerbanner
Speaker was booed for saying school is a community of learning... #prayerbanner
Teacher says her classroom is not a temple... #prayerbanner
Churchgoer says to love and accept others as they are #prayerbanner
Churchgoer discourages cruelty, belittling, wonders: why the fuss? #prayerbanner
Churchgoer says, fight violence in social media, instead of the mural #prayerbanner
Speaker is sad this case didn't provoke critical, constructive discussion #prayerbanner
Speaker asks, why not notice the district's accomplishments instead? #prayerbanner
Speaker says... continue the discussion WITHOUT a legal battle #prayerbanner
Resident admires the mural's values, but... it is Christian. #prayerbanner
Catholic supports Jessica BECAUSE of history of religious oppression #prayerbanner
Catholic says tax dollars should not support one religious view #prayerbanner
Believer supports Jessica, in view of history's religious oppression #prayerbanner
Resident sitting behind me is calling every speaker against the banner, sotto voce, a fecking 'hypocrite' #prayerbanner
Speaker asks that this case be a chance to model adult behavior #prayerbanner
Taxpayer, mother, says appeal makes no sense #prayerbanner
Taxpayer, mother, says, devote attention to education, not appeal #prayerbanner
Mother remembers prayer in school as coercive, confusing #prayerbanner
Vet says, mural is not a govt. document, so allowable #prayerbanner
Speaker reminds that we don't go to school to pray #prayerbanner
Speaker reminds us that Dalai Lama is an atheist #prayerbanner
Speaker says no appeal... conserve tax dollars #prayerbanner
Resident says appeal, as someone has to take a stand #prayerbanner
Teen invokes Roger Williams and religious tolerance #prayerbanner
Teen asks, what's next, taking IGWT off money? #prayerbanner
Speaker says progressive agenda is filth, evil, tragic #prayerbanner
Speaker says the suit was cowardly #prayerbanner
Student, a catholic, was shocked to learn of the suit #prayerbanner
Student says this is about morals [and is adamant, rambling] #prayerbanner
Teen doubts taxpayers want city to quit, tail between legs #prayerbanner
Speaker says, supporters should fund appeal, not taxes #prayerbanner
Speaker says appeal would snuff hope of fiscal health #prayerbanner
Speaker says personal feelings beside the point #prayerbanner
Father recalls daughter speaking against budget cuts #prayerbanner
Father says, we can't even spend $1k on trash bags! #prayerbanner
Father says, do not gamble with my kids' education #prayerbanner
Speaker thinks SCOTUS ignores 200 years of US history? #prayerbanner
Speaker: they're pushing our god out of public life! #prayerbanner
Speaker somehow equating this case with communism #prayerbanner
Speaker feels ill at spectacle of divisiveness #prayerbanner
Business owner says, save school money for education #prayerbanner
Resident says mural does not promote a religious belief! #prayerbanner
Speaker says prayers need not be religious, nor amen #prayerbanner
Speaker warns of traditions being torn down #prayerbanner
Atheist being booed for being atheist #prayerbanner
Atheist to give $500 to preserve banner outside school #prayerbanner
Speaker asks if supporters would support an Allah mural #prayerbanner
Financial planner says appeal makes no fiscal sense #prayerbanner
Resident says RW would find mural violation of SOCAS #prayerbanner
Speaker asks if they can appeal figure of $173k #prayerbanner
Priest says, I never viewed it as a prayer #prayerbanner
Teen teebower says, I am a servant of god #prayerbanner
Classmate says JA was never bullied #prayerbanner
Classmate says, this is a CHRISTIAN community #prayerbanner
Mother says the Ahlquists are wasting the school's money #prayerbanner
Resident says, appeal, don't surrender our rights #prayerbanner
While other speak, Chris Young is signing up more pro-appeal folks, to keep out-of-towners away from mic #prayerbanner
Speaker says ours is a DIVERSE nation, not Christian #prayerbanner
Mother says her kids' freedom of speech ignored #prayerbanner
Mother worried US on slippery slope, losing freedoms #prayerbanner
Speaker notes string of attacks on religion in US #prayerbanner
Speaker invokes Obamaplot, MLK, looming endtimes #prayerbanner
Conspiracy theorist gets rousing applause #prayerbanner
Speaker asks if JA changes her mind, can mural stay? #prayerbanner
Speaker [not a linguist] observes that "Amen" is not religious -- it's just an 'affirmation'! #prayerbanner
Speaker says mural is a poem, TITLED "School Prayer" #prayerbanner
Speaker thinks suit came from JA's sense of entitlement #prayerbanner
Speaker defines 'artifact', says mural is one #prayerbanner
Speaker says if mural goes, so should museum artifacts #prayerbanner
Speaker says victor gets the spoils, to write history #prayerbanner
Mother says HER mother would support an appeal #prayerbanner
Wistful speaker remembers school prayer #prayerbanner
Alumna of '63 says when JFK died we said the creed, not prayer #prayerbanner
Man sitting in front of me explains why he wants an appeal: America is in a sorry state #prayerbanner
Pastor says, we choose the traditions we honor #prayerbanner
Pastor says RI first place to have religious liberty #prayerbanner
Pastor says prayer not a govt. matter #prayerbanner
Speaker says post a disclaimer or take it down #prayerbanner
Speaker offended by Christian patriarchy #prayerbanner
Unassuming woman sitting next to me has filled seven notebook pages with angry words about atheists #prayerbanner
Speaker critical of Catholicism booed loudly #prayerbanner
Speaker recalls only Hanukah lesson from school #prayerbanner
Father says, hey, no one forced to recite prayer #prayerbanner
School committee members giving their yeas, nays... #prayerbanner
Lawyer with 24 years of experience says, this is a winnable case [displays dubious legal acumen] #prayerbanner
District executive is "first and foremost a teacher", yet will gamble with $500k of student funding #prayerbanner
Committee member supports a "minority of one", is booed #prayerbanner
Committee member says that for all the funds people have said is available, "not one dime" has been given #prayerbanner
Committee member (Brahe bless her) asks, where were donations when we cut music? #prayerbanner
The final vote, to cacophony of boos, is against appeal #prayerbanner
Yet the pro-appeal folks don't seem fazed; perhaps the vote reinforces their self-image as victims? #prayerbanner
At Dunkin Donuts rally point after the decision, Ahlquist dad wary of "goons"; JA just wants a donut #prayerbanner
I agree with James Croft -- let's raise money to cover the city's legal costs http://bit.ly/wb4vo0 #prayerbanner

Penn vets prez candidates

noreply@blogger.com (Zachary Bos) — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 17:03:00 +0000

Penn Jillette sizes up the major candidates in the 2012 presidential race in this video interview with Big Think. "Jillette's scorecard is unique in a number of ways. For one thing, it's decidedly non-partisan. Jillette directs his criticism at Democrats and Republicans alike. Another noticeable attribute: you'll be hard-pressed to find another voting guide out there that is quite so colorful, and so laced with profanity, as Jillette's."
.

Anti-evolutionism in New Hampshire schools?

noreply@blogger.com (Zachary Bos) — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 17:00:00 +0000

A New Hampshire lawmaker has introduced a bill that would require public school science classes include scientists' "political and ideological viewpoints and their position on the concept of atheism." He claims the Columbine tragedy was caused by the teaching of evolution. (Mother Jones)

*

Speaking of The Granite State, New Hampshire freethinkers, please note: a new Humanist Meetup has started in the Hanover are, the Upper Valley Humanists Association. Check them out!

In the news: Boston Atheists @Xmas

noreply@blogger.com (Zachary Bos) — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:57:00 +0000

The weekly Dig Boston, in its last issue of 2011, ran a nice profile of how some of us in the Boston secular community view the holiday season. The article doesn't seem to be online, but I've had it scanned and posted to the files section on the BA Meetup site, where you can read it as a PDF. I'm still in touch with the author, so if you'd like to follow-up with him, and let him know what you think of the job he did, let me know and I can pass your message on to him.

GET CAUGHT THINKERING

noreply@blogger.com (Zachary Bos) — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:55:00 +0000

BA organizer Calvin Fisher brings to our attention an article on Examiner.com, whose author looks at Dave Silverman's proposed alternative to the silly practice known as Tebowing. It's called Thinkering.

Get in on the trend, hepcats.

COOTIE CONFLICT IN ISRAEL

noreply@blogger.com (Zachary Bos) — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:51:00 +0000

As the ultra-Orthodox Haredi community in Israel continues to grow its numbers, its coming into contact with a, let's say, more modern culture, which isn't accustomed to segregating the genders. At the Wall Street Journal, you can read about the latest fracas, occurring when a female member of the IDF had the brazen audacity to sit in the front of a bus, to the horror of the Orthodox men who expected her to take her place in the back, where her sexual cooties couldn't brush off on anyone else.

In past weeks, there have been marches and even physical clashes in Israel, relating to similar incidents. Thank goodness the culture of the US isn't subject to, or under threat of being subject to, the religious puritanism of patriarchal fundamentalists! (Wait.... )

Introducing the National Atheist Party

noreply@blogger.com (Zachary Bos) — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:50:00 +0000

If you stopped by the Boston Atheists solstice party last month (a great time!), you may have met Tanya Walker, the Massachusetts chapter leader for the National Atheist Party. "The what?", you might ask. Well, the NAP is "a diverse, all-inclusive, progressive, secular political movement and a response to the lack of representation for all free-thinking people who are legal, law-abiding citizens of the United States." Further, the NAP "is not against anyone's religion. We are not a group convened to combat religion. We are not an evangelical group for the promotion of atheism. We are a political party, convened to give atheists a voice in government that they have never had before. Open atheists, voting on issues. That's it."

There was a useful piece this week in WashPo about the NAP, whose officers over the past few months have been as Amish barn-raisers, raising funds, developing their web and social media networks, installing the expertise and logistical structure of an organization with state and national presence, and so on. Learn more about them at http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/atheists-face-uphill-climb-with-new-political-party/2012/01/03/gIQAjs4oYP_story.html.

If you'd like to learn more, two good points of access are 1) the MA State Chapter page on Facebook, s, and 2) the state forum on the NAP website.

I invited the Facebook page moderator, Mason Eaton, to introduce himself:

My name is Mason Eaton and I am the group administrator for the Massachusetts chapter of the National Atheist Party. As a young Atheist, I believe in equality amongst everyone regardless of their religious upbringing, and I feel that the secular populace in America is grossly misunderstood and not given a proper chance to share their voices. In the NAP, the voice of one is accompanied by the voices of many others, and as a group, we will not be silenced out. Equality and Reason, evolving our politics.

A most timely announcement about the NAP is, of course, its co-sponsorship of the Reason Rally in Washington DC this March. There is still time to reserve a seat on one of the buses driving down there from Mass.

How excellent it would be to have just an enormous number of people from Boston, Massachusetts, New England, down there at the Rally. To hear, among other speakers, Tim Minchin! See you there.

"This season, tell your family." -- stories of coming out atheist

noreply@blogger.com (Zachary Bos) — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 23:58:00 +0000

For many cultural traditions, this time of year -- the solstice, the winter revels, the New Year, Christmas, Sinterklaas, Ashura, Hanukkah -- brings families together for celebration. For atheists who aren't yet out of the closet, these gatherings can be tense. And even for atheists who have been open about their worldview, the holidays can be a succession of confrontations between their values and beliefs and the disapproval, or hostility, of family members.

I'd like to invite members and friends of the Boston Atheists community to share their stories of coming out about their atheism to their family, friends, and co-workers. How did it happen, when did it? Do you have advice for people who are wondering whether or how to come out of the closet themselves?

In these last weeks of the year, many of us could use the comfort of knowing that our difficult choices aren't unique; that there are lots of folks -- hundreds in our local community alone, I suspect -- who have faced these challenges and come out on the other side with greater peace of mind.

Feel free to post your "Tell Your Family" stories on the mailing list, by replying to this message, or at the Boston Atheists Facebook page.

From "How Do I Tell My Family I'm an Atheist? A Question of Moral Atheism" (PDF format) by Dominick Cancilla:

Some religious people associate atheism with immorality or with a rejection of God that leaves no accountability for indulging carnal desires. If your family falls into this group, you can reassure them that you are still the same good, honest, moral person you always were, but that now you are moral because it is the right thing to do, not because you fear eternal punishment.

From "How to tell your family you are an atheist", by Chris Jensen Romer:

Saying things like 'While I respect your world view I don't feel comfortable with it, I need to find my own way.' is the way to go. This does not put the other party in the position of having to fight for their view. It also leaves the door open 'I need to find my own way.' This is giving them a place where they can accept your current position as it could well not be your final position. A number of religious figures have spent time on their own finding their own way. I seem to recall Jesus is supposed to have spent 40 days and 40 nights doing exactly this. So you're in good company.

From "Coming Out to Your Family: Should You Reveal Your Atheism to Family, Parents?" by Austin Cline:

Precisely because telling others about your real beliefs and real feelings can be difficult, it can be an important step towards becoming more self-confident and mature. You could also being doing a lot to encourage better attitudes towards atheists by demonstrating how they can be moral and mature people. Perhaps there are other members of your family who also have doubts or who disbelieve — by speaking up, you will find that you share more in common with them and will also help them come to terms with who they are.

From "How Do I Reveal My Atheism To My Family?" by Austin Cline:

So, you've decided that you cannot rationally or reasonably continue with the religion which you have always been involved in and which your family continues to belong to. Indeed, you can't even continue to call yourself a theist anymore — you find belief in the existence of God to be unreasonable for one reason or another have to abandon the label altogether. Now what?

From "Coming Out to Family and Friends Without Offending" by Richard Wade:

Emphasize that your lack of belief does not reduce your love for them, or your interest in their well-being. Tell them that even though you are not convinced of what they believe, you are very convinced of their goodness as persons. Then ask them to consider you in the same way.

Two easy actions for secular culture...

noreply@blogger.com (Zachary Bos) — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 18:52:00 +0000

.. that you can do today.

1. SIGN this petition, being presented to the White House, which asks that that "under God" clause be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance (which, as James Croft of the Harvard Humanist Chaplaincy pointed out, should really be asking that the Pledge be RESTORED to its original no-god form.)

2. SHARE your stories of discrimination against atheists, in order to raise awareness of this form of prejudice, and to show solidarity with others who are exposed to the same sort of bias. From The Friendly Atheist:

A writer from BBC News is working on an article about atheist discrimination in the workplace and it’d be great to tell some of our stories in the hopes that other people will understand what some atheists have had to deal with. The reporter writes, "I have seen a few stories on this site about people who felt excluded by their co-workers or even lost their job after expressing their beliefs. I would like to talk to people who have been through such an experience." In case you’re curious, the folks at Think Atheist have verified the posting — he is who he says he is."

The writer's contact information can be found at this post on the Think Atheist forum.

Ben Edward Akerley reviews Good Without God

noreply@blogger.com (Zachary Bos) — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 01:35:00 +0000

GOOD WITHOUT GOD: WHAT A BILLION NONRELIGIOUS PEOPLE DO BELIEVE by Greg M. Epstein. HarperCollins, New York. 10/10. 250 pages. $14.99 (paperback)

Greg M. Epstein holds the post of Humanist chaplain at Harvard University. For Good Without God, his Humanist primer, he chose the statistical subtitle to drive home the surprising fact that almost 1/6 of Earth's teeming billions constitute nonbelievers (with a bewildering array of various labels for their skepticism). Even in the U.S. as the developed world's by far most religious nation, at least 15% (approximately 40 million) now claim no religious affiliation with "nonreligious" representing the fastest-growing "religious preference" in all 50 states and an astonishing one in four young adults professing no religion at all.

In 1915, a Unitarian minister named John Dietrich (1878-1957) first adopted the term "Humanism" as the name for his religion since he especially liked that it echoed a connection to renaissance humanists in Europe. Finally, by 1941, Dietrich, together with others of similar belief, founded the American Humanist Association, still the leading body for Humanist activism in America.

The chaplain eschews calling Humanism a religion because it has no divinities and no supernaturalism. Instead, he opts for the European coinage "lifestance" meaning more than just a philosophy but not a divine or revealed belief system. Since Humanists only have faith in humanity, they constitute the true believers because their secular philosophy dictates that our dignity of mutual concern and self-fulfillment through service to humanity's highest ideals offer more than enough reasons that we can and should be good without God, focusing more on the "good" than on the "without God" half of the equation.

Believers and nonbelievers alike have to contend with life's three most pressing concerns: aging, sickness and death. Fear of the latter is incontrovertibly the most intense and provides the most rational explanation of how religion capitalizes on this human frailty by promising solace, comfort and seductive reassurance of immortality. The religious believe in life after death. By contrast, Humanists believe only in life before death with no need of supplication to an imaginary heavenly father.

God is the most important, influential, literary character ever created by Earthlings, but one must know precisely what is meant by God, since the more a word can mean anything, the more it means absolutely nothing. Consequently, the apologist outlines a brief history of the definition of God from Spinoza to modern day theologians whose wildly divergent take on the God question really settles nothing definitively.

Just as anthropologists have never found a culture without some form of religion, a survey of the world's major religions indicates that basically every belief system contains the equivalent of the Golden Rule and the author gives verbatim, side-by-side comparisons of this universal moral principle from eight of the leading faiths. He also undertakes an extensive exegesis of the Ten Commandments and translates the Humanist equivalent of six of them while arguing that even the most ardent nonbelievers can find total concordance with the remaining four (re: murder, adultery, stealing and slander).

Acceptance of Humanism and Atheism was severely hampered and demonized during the last century because of their connection in some cases to socialism and communism. In our new millennium, the demonization comes from the Religious Right, with leaders like Rick Warren, pastor of the Saddleback megachurch, spearheading the vicious attack. His book, The Purpose Driven Life, has become the best-selling non-fiction book in the history of publishing and its author now ranks as one of the most influential leaders of our generation. The evangelist's condemnation of every nonbeliever to spend all eternity in Hell, constitutes a profound insult and gratuitous affront to all those outside of his "fold" and his statement broadcast on national TV that he could never vote for an atheist president only served to greatly compound the offense.

My only negative criticism of this valuable entry is that as helpful as his excellent appendix is with its list of Humanist and secular resources, in a work of this wide a scope, Epstein does readers a distinct disservice by not also appending an index.

_ _ _ _ _

Views of marriage in the Bible

noreply@blogger.com (Zachary Bos) — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 15:43:00 +0000

Hat tip to BA member Jake J. for sending this along; original source unknown.

Vote in this poll: Does "under God" belong in the Pledge?

noreply@blogger.com (Zachary Bos) — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:01:00 +0000

Presumably in recognition of Flag Day, the editors of the metro-west Massachusetts newspaper Sentinel & Enterprise have asked a poll question on their homepage for today, June 14: "Do the words 'under God' belong in the Pledge of Allegiance?".

Just two months ago, Atheist activist Michael Newdow failed to convince a federal court in California that references to God in the Pledge of Allegiance and on US currency are unconstitutional endorsements of religion. Newdow was not discouraged, and continues to develop legal strategies to attack this unconstitutional endorsement of a religious view by the government.

Let's encourage Newdow and others who are working to further and defend the separation of church and state, by making our views known. There are many people for whom the defense of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is a reflex -- they're just not thinking about that they're doing. That doesn't stop them, of course, and it doesn't discourage politicians who want to be seen as defenders of traditional values, no matter how prejudicial the status quo is against secular members of the community.

Please go to http://www.sentinelandenterprise.com today, Tuesday June 14th, and share your vote. It's just an online poll in a local newspaper, sure, but we need to make a little noise, push back a little, every time we see someone trying to drum up support for inappropriate church-state entanglement.

As of writing, there are 133 votes for the God clause, and 11 against. One of those is mine. Let's push back a little, please.

I'll be writing a letter to the editor today, to hopefully appear in the paper tomorrow. I'll share what I write on the mailing lists / message boards, and I encourage others to write as well.

So! Go to http://www.sentinelandenterprise.com and vote NO, the words "under God" should NOT appear in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Zak Bos on NPR, on the meaning of life

noreply@blogger.com (Zachary Bos) — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 17:18:00 +0000

At the show page for NH NPR's The Socrates Exchange, you can hear me, BA director Zachary Bos, opine on the meaning of life, from 26:45-31:00. I'm sure the zampolits will tell me if I deviate from Atheist Command's official dogma. (Direct link to audio file here)

Quick answer: yes, life is *ultimately* meaningless, but so what? There are more than enough kinds of subjective, personal, human-sized meaning to keep ourselves busy with.

I had this answer ready where I talk about the impressive ways our Boston Atheists members flaunt the old idea that a life without gods is a life devoid of meaning, but it isn't in the final cut of the show. Too bad -- it would be have good to hear about we've got folks who are raising kids, who volunteer, who work in fields with low pay but high yield of social benevolence, who possess sophisticated views of the universe and their place in it, etc. Long story short: it's real nice to be a part of this crowd.

"The Last Answer" by Isaac Asimov

noreply@blogger.com (Zachary Bos) — Mon, 23 May 2011 17:19:00 +0000

[NB: Amazing coincidence, that the protagonist of this famous short story by Mr. Asimov, shares a name with the founder of the Templeton Foundation. Asimov's character devotes his existence to the destruction of a 'spiritual' force with seeming limitless powers; the real life Templeton devoted his fortune to the shoring up of flimsy theological doctrines.]

Murray Templeton was forty-five years old, in the prime of life, and with all parts of his body in perfect working order except for certain key portions of his coronary arteries, but that was enough.

The pain had come suddenly, had mounted to an unbearable peak, and had then ebbed steadily. He could feel his breath slowing and a kind of gathering peace washing over him.

There is no pleasure like the absence of pain – immediately after pain. Murray felt an almost giddy lightness as though he were lifting in the air and hovering.

He opened his eyes and noted with distant amusement that the others in the room were still agitated. He had been in the laboratory when the pain had struck, quite without warning, and when he had staggered, he had heard surprised outcries from the others before everything vanished into overwhelming agony.

Now, with the pain gone, the others were still hovering, still anxious, still gathered about his fallen body –– Which, he suddenly realised, he was looking down on.

He was down there, sprawled, face contorted. He was up here, at peace and watching.

He thought: Miracle of miracles! The life-after-life nuts were right.

And although that was a humiliating way for an atheistic physicist to die, he felt only the mildest surprise, and no alteration of the peace in which he was immersed.

He thought: There should be some angel – or something – coming for me.

The Earthly scene was fading. Darkness was invading his consciousness and off in a distance, as a last glimmer of sight, there was a figure of light, vaguely human in form, and radiating warmth.

Murray thought: What a joke on me. I’m going to Heaven.

Even as he thought that, the light faded, but the warmth remained. There was no lessening of the peace even though in all the Universe only he remained – and the Voice.

The Voice said, “I have done this so often and yet I still have the capacity to be pleased at success.”

It was in Murray’s mind to say something, but he was not conscious of possessing a mouth, tongue, or vocal chords. Nevertheless, tried to make a sound. He tried, mouthlessly, to hum words or breathe them or just push them out by a contraction of – something.

And they came out. He heard his own voice, quite recognisable, and his own words, infinitely clear.

Murray said, “Is this Heaven?”

The Voice said, “This is no place as you understand place.”

Murray was embarrassed, but the next question had to be asked. “Pardon me if I sound like a jackass. Are you God?”

Without changing intonation or in any way marring the perfection of the sound, the Voice managed to sound amused. “It is strange that I am always asked that in, of course, an infinite number of ways. There is no answer I can give that you would comprehend. I am – which is all that I can say significantly and you may cover that with any word or concept you please.”

Murray said, “And what am I? A soul? Or am I only personified existence too?” He tried not to sound sarcastic, but it seemed to him that he had failed. He thought then, fleetingly, of adding a ‘Your Grace’ or ‘Holy One’ or something to counteract the sarcasm, and could not bring himself to do so even though for the first time in his existence he speculated on the possibility of being punished for his insolence – or sin? – with Hell, and what that might be like.

The Voice did not sound offended. “You are easy to explain – even to you. You may call yourself a soul if that pleases you, but what you are is a nexus of electromagnetic forces, so arranged that all the interconnections and interrelationships are exactly imitative of those of your brain in your Universe-existence – down to the smallest detail. Therefore you have your capacity for thought, your memories, your personality. It still seems to you that you are you.”

Murray found himself incredulous. “You mean the essence of my brain was permanent?”

“Not at all. There is nothing about you that is permanent except what I choose to make so. I formed the nexus. I constructed it while you had physical existence and adjusted it to the moment when the existence failed.”

The Voice seemed distinctly pleased with itself, and went on after a moment’s pause. “An intricate but entirely precise construction. I could, of course, do it for every human being on your world but I am pleased that I do not. There is pleasure in the selection.”

“You choose very few then?”

“Very few.”

“And what happens to the rest?”

“Oblivion! – Oh, of course, you imagine a Hell.”

Murray would have flushed if he had the capacity to do so. He said, “I do not. It is spoken of. Still, I would scarcely have thought I was virtuous enough to have attracted your attention as one of the Elect.”

“Virtuous? – Ah, I see what you mean. It is troublesome to have to force my thinking small enough to permeate yours. No, I have chosen you for your capacity for thought, as I choose others, in quadrillions, from all the intelligent species of the Universe.”

Murray found himself suddenly curious, the habit of a lifetime. He said, “Do you choose them all yourself or are there others like you?”

For a fleeting moment, Murray thought there was an impatient reaction to that, but when the Voice came, it was unmoved. “Whether or not there are others is irrelevant to you. This Universe is mine, and mine alone. It is my invention, my construction, intended for my purpose alone.”

“And yet with quadrillions of nexi you have formed, you spend time with me? Am I that important?”

The Voice said, “You are not important at all. I am also with others in a way which, to your perception, would seem simultaneous.”

“And yet you are one?”

Again amusement. The Voice said, “You seek to trap me into an inconsistency. If you were an amoeba who could consider individuality only in connection with single cells and if you were to ask a sperm whale, made up of thirty quadrillion cells, whether it was one or many, how could the sperm whale answer in a way that would be comprehensible to the amoeba?”

Murray said dryly, “I’ll think about it. It may become comprehensible.”

“Exactly. That is your function. You will think.”

“To what end? You already know everything, I suppose.”

The Voice said, “Even if I knew everything, I could not know that I know everything.”

Murray said, “That sounds like a bit of Eastern philosophy – something that sounds profound precisely because it has no meaning.”

The Voice said, “You have promise. You answer my paradox with a paradox – except that mine is not a paradox. Consider. I have existed eternally, but what does that mean? It means I cannot remember having come into existence. If I could, I would not have existed eternally. If I cannot remember having come into existence, then there is at least one thing – the nature of my coming into existence – that I do not know.

“Then, too, although what I know is infinite, it is also true that what there is to know is infinite, and how can I be sure that both infinities are equal? The infinity of potential knowledge may be infinitely greater than the infinity of my actual knowledge. Here is a simple example: If I knew every one of the even integers, I would know an infinite number of items, and yet I would still not know a single odd integer.”

Murray said, “But the odd integers can be derived. If you divide every even integer in the entire infinite series by two, you will get another infinite series which will contain within it the infinite series of odd integers.”

The Voice said, “You have the idea. I am pleased. It will be your task to find other such ways, far more difficult ones, from the known to the not-yet-known. You have your memories. You will remember all the data you have ever collected or learned, or that you have or will deduce from that data. If necessary, you will be allowed to learn what additional data you will consider relevant to the problems you set yourself.”

“Could you not do all that for yourself?”

The Voice said, “I can, but it is more interesting this way. I constructed the Universe in order to have more facts to deal with. I inserted the uncertainty principle, entropy, and other randomisation factors to make the whole not instantly obvious. It has worked well for it has amused me throughout its entire existence.

“I then allowed complexities that produced first life and then intelligence, and use it as a source for a research team, not because I need the aid, but because it would introduce a new random factor. I found I could not predict the next interesting piece of knowledge gained, where it would come from, by what means derived.”

Murray said, “Does that ever happen?”

“Certainly. A century doesn’t pass in which some interesting item doesn’t appear somewhere.”

“Something that you could have thought of yourself, but had not done so yet?”

“Yes.”

Murray said, “Do you actually think there’s a chance of my obliging you in this manner?”

“In the next century? Virtually none. In the long run, though, your success is certain, since you will be engaged eternally.”

Murray said, “I will be thinking through eternity? Forever?”

“Yes.”

“To what end?”

“I have told you. To find new knowledge.”

“But beyond that. For what purpose am I to find new knowledge?”

“It was what you did in your Universe-bound life. What was its purpose then?”

Murray said, “To gain new knowledge that only I could gain. To receive the praise of my fellows. To feel the satisfaction of accomplishment knowing that I had only a short time allotted me for the purpose. – Now I would gain only what you could gain yourself if you wished to take a small bit of trouble. You cannot praise me; you can only be amused. And there is no credit or satisfaction in accomplishment when I have all eternity to do it in.”

The Voice said, “And you do not find thought and discovery worthwhile in itself? You do not find it requiring no further purpose?”

“For a finite time, yes. Not for all eternity.”

“I see your point. Nevertheless, you have no choice.”

“You say I am to think. You cannot make me do so.”

The Voice said, “I do not wish to constrain you directly. I will not need to. Since you can do nothing but think, you will think. You do not know how not to think.”

“Then I will give myself a goal. I will invent a purpose.”

The Voice said tolerantly, “That you can certainly do.”

“I have already found a purpose.”

“May I know what it is?”

“You know already. I know we are not speaking in the ordinary fashion. You adjust my nexus is such a way that I believe I hear you and I believe I speak, but you transfer thoughts to me and from me directly. And when my nexus changes with my thoughts you are at once aware of them and do not need my voluntary transmission.”

The Voice said, “You are surprisingly correct. I am pleased. – But it also pleases me to have you tell me your thoughts voluntarily.”

“Then I will tell you. The purpose of my thinking will be to discover a way to disrupt this nexus of me that you have created. I do not want to think for no purpose but to amuse you. I do not want to think forever to amuse you. I do not want to exist forever to amuse you. All my thinking will be directed toward ending the nexus. That would amuse me.”

The Voice said, “I have no objection to that. Even concentrated thought on ending your own existence may, in spite of you, come up with something new and interesting. And, of course, if you succeed in this suicide attempt you will have accomplished nothing, for I would instantly reconstruct you and in such a way as to make your method of suicide impossible. And if you found another and still more subtle fashion of disrupting yourself, I would reconstruct you with that possibility eliminated, and so on. It could be an interesting game, but you will nevertheless exist eternally. It is my will.”

Murray felt a quaver but the words came out with a perfect calm. “Am I in Hell then, after all? You have implied there is none, but if this were Hell you would lie to us as part of the game of Hell.”

The Voice said, “In that case, of what use is it to assure you that you are not in Hell? Nevertheless, I assure you. There is here neither Heaven nor Hell. There is only myself.”

Murray said, “Consider, then, that my thoughts may be useless to you. If I come up with nothing useful, will it not be worth your while to – disassemble me and take no further trouble with me?”

“As a reward? You want Nirvana as the prize of failure and you intend to assure me failure? There is no bargain there. You will not fail. With all eternity before you, you cannot avoid having at least one interesting thought, however you try against it.”

“Then I will create another purpose for myself. I will not try to destroy myself. I will set as my goal the humiliation of you. I will think of something you have not only never thought of but never could think of. I will think of the last answer, beyond which there is no knowledge further.”

The Voice said, “You do not understand the nature of the infinite. There may be things I have not yet troubled to know. There cannot be anything I cannot know.”

Murray said thoughtfully, “You cannot know your beginning. You have said so. Therefore you cannot know your end. Very well, then. That will be my purpose and that will be the last answer. I will not destroy myself. I will destroy you – if you do not destroy me first.”

The Voice said, “Ah! You come to that in rather less than average time. I would have thought it would have taken you longer. There is not one of those I have with me in this existence of perfect and eternal thought that does not have the ambition of destroying me. It cannot be done.”

Murray said, “I have all eternity to think of a way of destroying you.”

The Voice said, equably, “Then try to think of it.” And it was gone.

But Murray had his purpose now and was content.

For what could any Entity, conscious of eternal existence, want – but an end?

For what else had the Voice been searching for countless billions of years? And for what other reason had intelligence been created and certain specimens salvaged and put to work, but to aid in that great search? And Murray intended that it would be he, and he alone, who would succeed.

Carefully, and with the thrill of purpose, Murray began to think.

He had plenty of time.

Support the effort to protect secular rights in Cranston, RI

noreply@blogger.com (Zachary Bos) — Thu, 19 May 2011 19:14:00 +0000

Support the Removal of the Cranston High School West Prayer

Atheist offers to take stuff off your hands, avoid Rapture hassle

noreply@blogger.com (Zachary Bos) — Thu, 12 May 2011 16:05:00 +0000

Fear of Faith in Cambridge

noreply@blogger.com (Zachary Bos) — Tue, 03 May 2011 15:10:00 +0000

(Photo by Jenna Dee; fear mongering by Harold Camping et ilk.)

Creationist lecture this Sunday

noreply@blogger.com (Zachary Bos) — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 03:15:00 +0000

When was the last time you stopped to think about why you believe in evolution? Join Nathaniel Jeanson, Harvard PhD in Biology, THIS SUNDAY in Boston, an in-depth look at his reasons for thinking that modern biology has failed to substantiate Darwin's evolutionary hypothesis. Q&A to follow.

Free admission and free parking available at the center -- look for signs.

Jeanson has given this presentation before -- get a full report from a BA member, at http://bostonatheists.blogspot.com/2009/08/report-on-nathaniel-jeansons.html.

You can download full audio files for the lecture and Q&A session at http://w74.org/ij.

The Boston Atheist Examiner wrote it up (http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-boston/reports-from-a-creationist-lecture-boston) and a letter I circulated about the lecture was posted at Richard Dawkins' website (http://richarddawkins.net/articles/4176).

The Institute for Creation Research thought we Boston Atheists weren't very open-minded last time: http://www.icr.org/article/harvard-phd-lecture-exposes-prejudices. This time around, we can be even more open! Open, that is, to establishing ties with members of the congregation, and being open to finding ways to help them avoid being misled by Creationist flimflam.

Where: Longwood Galleria Conference Center, 42 Longwood Avenue Boston, MA (accessible via the mall food court)
When: Sunday, March 27, 2011, 6:30 PM

Sponsored by http://calvarychapelinthecity.com/.

RSVP at http://www.meetup.com/bostonatheists/events/17048404/

STOP [praying]

noreply@blogger.com (Zachary Bos) — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 01:27:00 +0000

As seen on Dwelly Street in Fall River, Massachusetts.
Photo by Katie Goldman.
NB: This blog does not condone gratuitous graffiti.