BAD LANGUAGE - Hellelujah! Godless in California

GODLESS In C@LIFORNIA
Stollznow, Karen. 2006. Hellelujah! Godless in California.
the Skeptic. Volume 26, No. 3., pp.30-33.
Reprinted with the permission of the Australian Skeptics.

For some time I’ve been attending monthly seminars held by the East Bay Atheists (http: //www.eastbayatheists.org/). This is an active crowd, with the enthusiasm, good humour and skepticism of our own organisation. My first encounter with the group was at a local fair, where I was handed a booklet entitled: What God Has Revealed To Man. It was blank. The author was the mystical-sounding Stsiehta Yab Tsae (think about it!). This group, along with the San Francisco Atheists and the Atheists of Silicon Valley, comprise the Northern Californian arm of the American Atheists (AA); a recovery program for those suffering from the effects of religion.

And so, to get my skeptical fix I attended the West Coast Regional Atheist Meet. This was a day long event held at a hotel south of San Francisco, a marathon of atheism and activism. Here are some highlights and ‘nuggets of wisdom’ of the day.

The first speaker was Ellen Johnson, President of the AA. Various figures report that there are between 41-54 million atheists in the United States, roughly one sixth of the population. While this section of society has considerable intellectual clout they are still fighting for political representation, for the civil rights of atheists. The organisation’s main focus is to enforce the separation of church and state in America. This is no small feat.

The AA provide assistance to people who are “under siege by religious groups”, in schools, prisons, the workplace or anywhere. They are active in filing law suits against abuses, where people have been fired, harassed or intimidated for their lack of religious belief. This also extends to the imposition of religion on the non-religious. Some recent causes include: the removal of crosses from water towers, actions against atheist discrimination in schools, the ongoing fight against the manipulation of tax exemption laws by ‘religious’ groups, and the successful banning of organised prayers, public displays of the ten ‘commandments’ and religious references in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Lawyer and activist Eddie Tabash recalled his Jewish upbringing, learning about the turbulent history of the persecuted ‘Chosen People’. Horrified, Tabash asked his Rabbi, “Why can’t God choose somebody else?” Tabash discussed some practical evidence to suggest that ‘God’ does not exist, and presented a list of simple yet vital questions that need to be asked in the face of blind faith. Why did miracles occur in Biblical times, yet not today? Why is God so “stingy” with direct evidence? Why is there so much reasonable confusion in the world regarding religions? If our consciousness relies on a physical brain, and can be eclipsed by illness or anaesthetic, how could we have awareness after death? Is the belief in religion just expressing a desire to live after death?

Tabash asserts that evolution is more likely in a godless world. “Evolution by natural selection is sloppy and wasteful. More than 99% of all species that ever existed on Earth are now extinct”. This is not so intelligent design. Tabash claims that modern Americans won’t live to see the secularisation of their society, and predicts a “100 year trajectory” for this to occur. It’s a pity that this coincides with the possible extinction of humankind through global warming (as forecast by evolutionary biologist David Seaborg at a subsequent meeting).

Is critical thinking becoming cool? Clark Adams presented a talk about the increase of atheism, skepticism and religious satire in popular media. Adams is president of the Internet Infidels (www.infidels.org) a website devoted to atheism, agnosticism, humanism and the scholarly critique of religion. Adams spoke about the emergence of skeptical attitudes in television, radio and online. He claims that the parody of medium John Edward by the cartoon show South Park reaches a wider audience and is more successful than any debunking by James Randi or Michael Shermer. From Judaism to Christianity, South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone have been unbiased in their lampooning of popular belief systems. However, in the US where free speech extends to everything but Scientology, their spoof of this cult led to (Scientologist) cast member Isaac Hayes (‘Chef’) quitting the show. Furthermore, the episode was banned by the station, Comedy Central, after one airing. Rumour claims that this ban was by order of Tom Cruise, who allegedly threatened to withdraw promotion of an upcoming film, an accusation that the actor denies. The channel has since re- aired the episode.

Adams explained that satire is a powerful advertisement for skepticism and atheism, even if it isn’t packaged as such. American ‘shock jock’ DJs frequently parody uncritical thinking. The infamous Howard Stern made fun of Jackie Stallone during a segment where she discussed ‘rumpology’, her ability to read bottoms, rather than the traditional palm (See This Little Piggy, Volume 22, No. 3) . Radio host Tom Leykis engages in vigorous debates with creationists, fundamentalists and new agers. Although these hosts never explicitly claim to be skeptics or atheists, they indirectly show this, and successfully further these causes with humour, irony and ‘ribbing’. Adams calls this “reason through ridicule”, especially important for an audience that is not otherwise exposed to critical thinking. To prove his point, Adams played skeptical snippets of popular radio and television shows, including a West Wing dialogue, written by Penn Jillette. From Penn and Teller’s Bullshit! and TV drama House, to comedies Becker and Malcolm in the Middle, skepticism is entering popular culture, in a palatable form for the public.

Activism doesn’t have to mean fanatically chaining yourself to a tree, or a copy of The Selfish Gene, as the case may be. There are many ways that we can show our skepticism, and spread the bad news. A number of activists recounted their heroic displays of atheism. For example, a member from Boise, Idaho ‘stole the thunder’ from the public ‘National Day of Prayer’ group, by hiring their god-given annual ‘spot’ on the steps of the town hall for an atheist meeting. After realising their ‘error’, the city tried to renege on the reservation, and a restraining order had to be arranged, to prevent the city from rescinding the permit.

Many of the suggestions offered apply to skepticism too. What have you done for skepticism lately? (Of course, you’re already on the right path as you’re reading this!) How can you get involved? Adapted for the discerning skeptic, here are a few ideas to get you started:

Dr David Eller is a specialist in the anthropology of religion, and spent two years researching the traditional and contemporary beliefs of Australian Aboriginal people. His book Natural Atheism is hailed as ‘the textbook of Atheism’. Eller explained that we are natural born atheists, with no innate knowledge or belief of any gods. There is no religion ‘in the brain’. We are socialised into systems of belief and there are many actual and potential religions. We are argued out of, not into, religion, and the best argument against any religion is the existence of all other religions.

Eller spoke of the analogy between religion and language. ‘Speaking Christian’ supports the Christian worldview. In this way, religion is a language, to speak it is to empower it, make it stronger, and to make it seem real. Religion has its own metalanguage of ‘heaven’, ‘hell’, ‘sin’, ‘salvation’ and ‘god’, all naming concepts rather than concrete ‘things’. Eller added that ‘god’ is poorly and subjectively defined. Of course, ‘god’ only appears in theism, not religion in general, that extends beyond monotheism and polytheism to animism and ancestor spirits. Thinking only in terms of ‘god’ and ‘Christianity’ is ethnocentric.

Eller quoted linguist Max Mueller’s view of religion as a “disease of language” that takes metaphor literally, e.g. spirits and demons. Eller also recommended linguist George Lakoff’s writings (Metaphors We Live By, and Don’t Think of an Elephant) and mentioned the fashionable concept of re-framing, that language choice can affect perception. In this vein, Eller explained that if we say “there is no god” or “I don’t believe in god”, this is to reaffirm the idea of ‘god’. When we use the language of religious people we are “playing in the sandbox with them”. Eller claims that “these people play games with us”, when they say “Atheism is a religion”, or “Science is a religion”. In contrast, neither is true, and atheism is “the absence of religion. Not collecting stamps is not a hobby!”

In closing, Eller mentioned Frank Luntz’s Republican Playbook and his collection of “14 Words Never to Use” (e.g. “Never say ‘Government’, instead say ‘Washington’”. “Never say ‘drilling for oil’, instead say ‘exploring for energy’”). In a similar vein, Eller provided some suggestions for words that atheists should never use. Instead of ‘belief’, say ‘unsupported claim’, ‘value’ or ‘confidence’. Instead of ‘the Church’, say ‘churches’ or ‘Christian church’. Instead of ‘religion’, talk about ‘the religious’, or a ‘system of unsupported claims’. Instead of the ‘Bible’, talk about the ‘Judaeo-Christian writings’. Instead of ‘God’, talk of ‘gods’. When someone asks, ‘do you believe in God?’ Ask them to ‘define that term’. This advice elicited a caution from a member of the audience, that sometimes we need to ‘speak the language’ of religion, to get our point across. We should choose our battles appropriately, and use the right tools. With this in mind, re-phrasing, or re-framing, can broaden our minds and teach us all how to think about these topics in new ways.

The show stopper was a curious event called the Jesus Jam. No, this wasn’t an improvisation of gospel music, it was an onslaught of bizarre theories about Jesus. Clearly inspired by David Letterman, and the Da Vinci Code fad, Don Havis provided the ‘Top 10 Weirdest Jesus Theories’. Amongst these was a theory espoused in the medieval Jewish anti-gospel, the Sepher Toldoth Yeshu¹. This presents Jesus (Yeshua) as a magician. This was no immaculate conception, instead it is claimed that Jesus was the bastard son of Mary, a simple hairdresser, and Joseph, a Roman soldier. For meddling in the dark arts, this Jesus, and his five disciples, were stoned to death by a group of prominent rabbis.

Did Jesus really rise from the dead, or had he really been dead at all? First proposed 150
years ago, the Jesus ‘swoon theory’ claims that the crucifixion did not actually kill Jesus, He just ‘appeared’ dead. Substantiated by 150 000 entries on Google, it seems that Jesus only passed out during his horrific ordeal. Three days later, he wasn’t resurrected, he ‘came to’. Jesus disentangled himself from his burial shroud (the Shroud of Turin?), rolled away the ‘large stone’ and flit past the guard. Despite his physical state, he walked back to his disciples, on pierced feet, and in his messiah complex he fibbed that he had risen from the dead. Rather than dying for our sins, He died of natural causes, after living out the rest of his days in obscurity. So, I ask you, which is the more credible theory, the Swoon or the Resurrection?

The confusing ‘Sacred Mushroom’ theory further undermines the Resurrection theory. Biblical Scholar John Allegro² proposes that the Christ death-resurrection myth is merely a literary device to ‘cover up’ an ancient story associated with a Middle-Eastern mushroom
worshipping cult. In this theory, the rite of the eucharist really symbolises “the partaking of the sacred fungus”. This theory doesn’t deserve any further discussion. I am typeless.

Just when you thought He was the son of a simple carpenter, Ralph Ellis³ claims that Jesus is actually the last in a long line of Egyptian pharaohs. Theologian and writer C. S. Lewis⁴ takes this one step further, insisting that Jesus was divine. No, this wasn’t from The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe. This was part of Lewis’ “Lord, Lunatic or Liar” theory. Lewis argued that Jesus must fall under one of these categories.

A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg - or he would be the devil of hell. You must take your choice. Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse.

Despite Jesus’ astonishing claims, he was no lunatic or liar. In this profound process of
elimination, Jesus was no ordinary human being, he was clearly a god incarnate.

The Number One weird Jesus theory is an argument championed by Dr William Harwood⁵.
Havis calls this the “Triple Combo Ugly Jesus, Crazy Jesus and Failed Revolutionary Jesus” theory. Gone are the long curly locks and gentle features. Harwood cites several references that claim Jesus’ body was “misshapen”, while one Andrew of Crete reported that Jesus had “eyebrows which meet”. A medieval source, now mysteriously lost, observed that Jesus was an “odd looking man, balding, stooped, and approximately 4 feet 6 inches tall”. Harwood further quotes Mark 15:7 to support the notion of Jesus as “failed revolutionary”. Finally, Harwood quotes Mark 3:21 which states that when the Roman authorities came to take Jesus into custody, his own family declared, “He’s gone mad”, while other biblical quotes suggest that he was “demon possessed”. Did I forget to mention that Harwood is supposedly an atheist biblical scholar?

By the end of the meeting, it seemed that pure skepticism is the luxury of us Aussies, as
America is so bogged down by the blurring of religion and society. Having said that, Ken Ham was our gift to the United States but indeed, this is where the market is.

Overall, the meeting was highly successful and enjoyable. It seems that even God approved. After all, He had spared us His vengeful bolts of lightening. Instead, a large section of the hotel’s roof collapsed a few days later, an evening before a Jehovah’s Witness convention.