Lincoln, Paine, and Garrison

To try to understand Lincoln even a little, one must read what he read and try and place that reading in the context of the times. Jacoby answered a question I had about whether Lincoln read Paine. She indicated that he had read The Age of Reason. How many of us have read it? We know that William Lloyd Garrison didn't read it according to Jacoby until November of 1845, "because he had been raised to regard the author...as 'a monster of iniquity.'" Garrison began publishing The Liberator in January of 1831. This was the same year that Abraham Lincoln settled in New Salem, IL. Lincoln was responsible for mail delivery. He had extra time to read. Dr. Robert Bray compiled a bibliography that attempts to list, in alphabetical order by author, all the books or parts of books that any serious scholar, biographer, or bibliographer has asserted that Abraham Lincoln read. Bray's book Reading With Lincoln provides details of his research.

We know from some of Lincoln's quotes and his writings that he read the Bible, plays by Shakespeare, and poetry by Robert Burns. He read many more that he attested to such as Aesop's Fables, and Life of Washington by Washington Irving. His law partner William H. Herndon was an avid purchaser of books and after Lincoln's assassination he catalogued many that he knew Lincoln read some in part and some in whole, before and during their partnership.  According to Herndon “In 1834, while still living in New Salem and before he became a lawyer, he was surrounded by a class of people exceedingly liberal in matters of religion. Volney’s Ruins and Payne’s Age of Reason passed from hand to hand. . . . Lincoln read both these books and thus assimilated them into his own being.” Additionally, of course, Lincoln read and studied many law books, including Blackstone's Commentaries.

People who lived in New Salem were recorded as saying that Lincoln also devoted time to reading newspapers. I would love to know if Garrison's Liberator made it to New Salem, and if Lincoln read it. I'm thinking he probably did. I wonder how it influenced his views on many issues of the time. Here is the first issue:

To the Public

January 1, 1831

In the month of August, I issued proposals for publishing "THE LIBERATOR" in Washington City; but the enterprise, though hailed in different sections of the country, was palsied by public indifference. Since that time, the removal of the Genius of Universal Emancipation to the Seat of Government has rendered less imperious the establishment of a simliar periodical in that quarter.

During my recent tour for the purpose of exciting the minds of the people by a series of discourses on the subject of slavery, every place that I visited gave fresh evidence of the fact, that a greater revolution in public sentiment was to be effected in the free States -- and particularly in New-England -- than at the South. I found contempt more bitter, opposition more active, detraction more relentless, prejudice more stubborn, and apathy more frozen, than among slave-owners themselves. Of course, there were individual exceptions to the contrary. This state of things afflicted, but did not dishearten me. I determined, at every hazard, to lift up the standard of emancipation in the eyes of the nation, within sight of Bunker HIll and in the birthplace of liberty. That standard is now unfurled; and long may it float, unhurt by the spoliations of time or the missles of a desperate foe--yea, till every chain be broken, and every bondman set free! Let Southern oppressors tremble--let their secret abettors tremble--let their Northern apologists tremble--let all the enemies of the persecuted blacks tremble.

I deem the publication of my original Prospectus unnecessary, as it has obtained a wide circulation. The principles therein inculcated will be steadily pursued in this paper, excepting that I shall not array myself as the political partisans of any man. In defending the great cause of human rights, I wish to derive the assistance of all religions and off all parties.

Assenting to the "self-evident truth" maintained in the American Declaration of Independence, "that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights--among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," I shall strenuously contend for the immediate enfranchisement of our slave population. In Park-Street Church, on the Fourth of July, 1829, in an address on slavery, I unreflectingly assented to the popular but pernicious doctrine of gradual abolition. I seize this opportunity to make a full and unequivocal recantation, and thus publicly to ask pardon of my God, of my country, and of my brethren the poor slaves, for having uttered a sentiment so full of timidity, injustice, and absurdity. A similar recantation, from my pen, was published in the Genius of Universal Emancipation at Baltimore, in September, 1829. My conscience is now satisfied.

I am aware that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen;--but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest--I will not equivocate--I will not excuse--I will not retreat a single inch--AND I WILL BE HEARD. The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal, and to hasten the resurrection of the dead.

It is pretended, that I am retarding the cause of emancipation by the coarseness of my invective and the precipitancy of my measures. The charge is not true. On this question my influence,--humble as it is,--is felt at this moment to a considerable extent, and shall be felt in coming years--not perniciously, but beneficially--not as a curse, but as a blessing; and posterity will bear testimony that I was right. I desire to thank God, that he enables me to disregard "the fear of man which bringeth a snare," and to speak his truth in its simplicity and power. And here I close with this fresh dedication:

"Oppression!  I have seen thee, face to face,

And met thy cruel eye and cloudy brow;

But thy soul-withering glance I fear not now

For dread to prouder feelings doth give place

Of deep abhorrence!  Scorning the disgrace

Of slavish knees that at they footstool bow,

I also kneel--but with far other vow

Do hail thee and they herd of hirelings base:

I swear, while life-blood warms my throbbing veins,

Still to oppose and thwart, with heart and hand,

Thy brutalising sway-till Afric's chains

Are burst, and Freedom rules the rescued land,

Trampling Oppression and his iron rod:

Such is the vow I take-so HELP ME GOD!"

WILLIAM LLOYD GARRISON.

BOSTON, January 1, 1831

The Essential Documents of American History was compiled by Norman P. Desmarais and James H. McGovern of Providence College.

I believe to try to place Lincoln in a specific category does a disservice to the incredible human being he was, a very well-educated, thoughtful individual who reflected deeply on the meaning of life and his role in it.

Feb27 Alt ?s Freethinker by Jacoby (Intro-2).

1.   Why did Robert Ingersoll praise the framers of the Constitution? (1).

2.   Who was the first American freethinker to be labeled an atheist? (5).

3.   Trying to discern the true religious opinions of the founders from their voluminous writings is rather like searching for what? (13).

4.   Where was the significance of Virginia’s religious freedom act recognized immediately? (25).

5.   William Cobbett referred to Thomas Paine as Judas and characterized his name as malignant, treacherous, unnatural, and blasphemous. When did he eventually change his mind? (36).

6.    That many Americans could embrace evangelical revivalism while voting for the deist Jefferson attest to what? (46).

7.    Reverend William Bentley played a significant role in the spread of freethought throughout their communities because he did what? (51).

8.   Elihu Palmer thought the importance of Enlightenment philosophy, and of the consequent upheavals in religion and government lay in the what? (55).

9.   Where do the bones of Thomas Paine rest today? (64-5).

 Alternative discussion questions.

1.   As early as 1789, conservatives were issuing warnings of a deist-atheist-radical conspiracy. How would you compare and contrast that reaction to conservatives’s creation of the Moral Majority about two hundred years later?

2.    What do you think of Benjamin Franklin’s advice to an acquaintance who was planning to circulate a pamphlet setting forth his arguments against the existence of God? Would Pam Zerba from Atheists in America page 192 have agreed with him? How have things changed from Franklin’s time to Pam’s or have they?

Quizzes Feb 27, Mar 1

This won't be on the exam, but we'll begin discussing it if time permits.

SJ Intro, 1-2 [Beginning with chapter 2, I'll limit my questions to the first half of longer chapters. I encourage you to supplement them with questions from the latter halves.]

1. What conviction rooted in Enlightenment philosophy have all freethinkers shared?

2. Insistence on what distinction separates secularists from "the religiously correct"?

3. Why was Elizabeth Cady Stanton censured by her fellow suffragists?

4. What made room for freethought in colonial America?

5. Whose interests coincided and coalesced in common support for separation of church and state?

6. How must "the religiously correct" explain the Constitution's omission of God?

7. Of what is the shunning of Tom Paine paradigmatic?

8. What changed in America between 1787 and 1797?

9. What did Jefferson say about the legitimate powers of government, with respect to belief in a god or gods? And what did his critic John Mason say about that?

10. What French names became "a kind of shorthand for freethought and deism" in America?

11. How did Universalism contradict Calvinism?


DQ

• Are Enlightenment values overly scientistic? (Have you seen the backlash against Steven Pinker's new Enlightenment Now? See below, for instance.*)
• Should private faith be kept apart from public discourse?
• Should progressive movements on behalf of traditionally-marginalized groups make a greater effort to coalesce with one another, despite lesser differences?
• Why are fundamentalists and their political advocates so successful in persuading the public that America was intended by its founders to be "a Christian nation"?
• How can the separation of church and state be effectively reinstated, among the broad misinformed electorate?
• Did the founders "forget" to include God in the Constitution?
• Could a politician in America today say what Jefferson said about the harmlessness of varieties of religious AND irreligious opinion?

Quiz Mar 1 SJ 3-4

1. In what way did New England and the Deep South trade places in the first half of the 19th century?

2. What was the "utilitarian justification for slavery"?

3. How have women's rights movements generally been seen, historically?

4. About what are contemporary religious conservatives mistaken?

5. How did William Lloyd Garrison say the Bible should be judged?

6. How did the Grimke sisters shock their most radical coreligionists?

7. Who were Garrison's heroes of conscience?

8. What was Lucretia Mott's motto?

9. [ch4] What words did not appear in the earliest drafts of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address?

10. How have Lincoln's views been variously described, over the years?

11. In Lincoln's day the word "unbelief" connoted what?

12. In his 2d inaugural address Lincoln spoke not as a theologian or saint but as a what, in Jacoby's judgment?

DQ

• Is the New South slowly returning to a pre-19th century ethos and state of mind, or has its transformation to entrenched conservatism become too ingrained?
• Do many people of your acquaintance defend the social status quo as somehow divinely ordained, or in some other way necessary and beyond our control?
• Is the current #MeToo movement similar to previous pushes for gender equality, or is it qualitatively different? How do you think it is, and will be, viewed by religious orthodoxy?
• Are Enlightenment values overrated in our society? Can you enumerate and rank them?
•  Should any text be considered sacred and unimpeachable?
• Who are your heroes of conscience?
• Would "under God" and "in God we trust" (etc.) be removed from our official discourse, currency, etc., if we were truly committed as a nation to religious freedom? Does the recent controversy surrounding confederate statues and iconography make it any likelier that that might happen?
• Do you think we've had any closeted atheists in the White House? 
• Do so many want to claim Lincoln as a co-religionist because they cannot imagine a "good and merciful" non-believer?
• COMMENT: "If these [savage guerrilla warriors] were typical Christians, could Christianity truly be termed good?" 122-3

Steven Pinker Wants You to Know Humanity Is Doing Fine. Just Don’t Ask About Individual Humans.

Steven Pinker doesn’t just want you to be happy; he wants you to be grateful too. His new book, “Enlightenment Now,” is a spirited and exasperated rebuke to anyone who refuses to concede that the world is becoming a better place. “None of us are as happy as we ought to be, given how amazing our world has become,” he writes. “People seem to bitch, moan, whine, carp and kvetch as much as ever.”

In the United States, this spectacular ingratitude is lamentably bipartisan, he says, shared by anti-establishmentarians on both sides who refuse to see the light: “Left-wing and right-wing political ideologies have themselves become secular religions, providing people with a community of like-minded brethren, a catechism of sacred beliefs, a well-populated demonology and a beatific confidence in the righteousness of their cause.” Of course, Pinker’s confidence in the righteousness of his own cause may come across as similarly beatific (he’s an atheist who’s confident enough to use the word “blessed” without a hint of irony), but as he repeatedly tells us, the evidence is on his side. Scientific discovery and technological developments have ensured that “everything is amazing.” He’s merely expounding the obvious.

Not so obvious, though, that he didn’t need to write a 550-page book to make his case. Pinker is a scientist — a psychologist, to be exact — and he prides himself on being thorough, valiantly fighting “progressophobia” with his voluble sentences and a fusillade of data. When he published “The Better Angels of Our Nature” in 2011, he believed he unequivocally showed that modernity and liberal Enlightenment values had made people less violent, and so he was taken aback by skeptical reviews that had the temerity to question his research methods or his conclusions.

“I had thought that a parade of graphs with time on the horizontal axis, body counts or other measures of violence on the vertical, and a line that meandered from the top left to the bottom right would cure audiences” of their delusions and “persuade them that at least in this sphere of well-being the world has made progress,” he recalls near the beginning of “Enlightenment Now.” But Pinker’s inability to “cure audiences” and “persuade them” doesn’t mean he has reconsidered his rhetorical approach; 300 pages after bemoaning those poor souls who read “Better Angels” and weren’t bowled over by his panoply of statistics, Pinker doubles down with still more data. “We have seen six dozen graphs that have vindicated the hope for progress by charting the ways in which the world has been getting better,” he writes... (continues)
==
Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason... gr...

“It is from the Bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine, and murder; for the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man.”

“One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.”

“I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”

“I have always strenuously supported the right of every man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.”

"Why I am Not a Muslim"

Since the question of Muslim apostasy arose during discussion yesterday, this might be of interest.

“The harsh truth that this is the only life we have should make us try and improve it for as many people as possible.”

I was born into a Muslim family and grew up in a country that now describes itself as an Islamic republic. My close family members identify themselves as Muslim: some more orthodox, others less. My earliest memories are of my circumcision and my first day at Koranic school—psychoanalysts may make what they wish of that. Even before I could read or write the national language I learned to read the Koran in Arabic without understanding a word of it—a common experience for thousands of Muslim children. As soon as I was able to think for myself, I discarded all the religious dogmas that had been foisted on me. I now consider myself a secular humanist who believes that all religions are sick men's dreams, false—demonstrably false—and pernicious. Such is my background and position, and there the matter would have rested but for the Rushdie affair* and the rise of Islam, I, who had never written a book before, was galvanized into writing this one by these events. Many of my postwar generation must have wondered how we would personally have stood in the ideologically charged atmosphere of the 1930s—for Nazism, for Communism, for freedom, for democracy, for king and country, for anti-imperialism? It is rare in one's life that one has an opportunity to show on what side of an important life and death issue one stands—the Rushdie affair and the rise of Islam are two such issues and this book is my stand. For those who regret not being alive in the 1930s to be able to show their commitment to a cause, there is, first the Rushdie affair, and, second, the war that is taking place in Algeria, the Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, a war whose principal victims are Muslims, Muslim women, Muslim intellectuals, writers, ordinary, decent people. This book is my war effort. Each time I have doubted the wisdom of writing such a book, new murders in the name of God and Islam committed in Algeria or Iran or Turkey or the Sudan have urged me on to complete it. The most infuriating and nauseating aspect of the Rushdie affair was the spate of articles and books written by Western apologists for Islam—journalists, xiv W H Y I AM NOT A MUSLI M scholars, fellow travelers, converts (some from communism)—who claimed to be speaking for Muslims. This is surely condescension of the worst kind, and it is untrue: these authors do not speak for all Muslims. Many courageous individuals from the Muslim world supported and continue to support Rushdie. The Egyptian journal, Rose al-Youssef even published extracts from the Satanic Verses in January 1994. The present work attempts to sow a drop of doubt in an ocean of dogmatic certainty by taking an uncompromising and critical look at almost all the fundamental tenets of Islam. Here, anticipating criticism, I can only cite the words of the great John Stuart Mill, and those of his greatest modern admirer, Von Hayek. First from Mill, On Liberty: "Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being 'pushed to an extreme'; not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case."1 Again from Mill: But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. .. . We can never be sure that the opinion we arc endeavouring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still.2 Now Von Hayek: In any society freedom of thought will probably be of direct significance only for a small minority. But this does not mean that anyone is competent, or ought to have power, to select those to whom this freedom is to be reserved. .. . To deprecate the value of intellectual freedom because it will never mean for everybody the same possibility of independent thought is completely to miss the reasons which give intellectual freedom its value. What is essential to make it serve its function as the prime mover of intellectual progress is not that everybody may be able to think or write anything, but that any cause or idea may be argued by somebody. So long as dissent is not suppressed, there will always be some who will query the ideas ruling their contemporaries and put new ideas to the test of argument and propaganda... (continues)

*Christopher Hitchens on the Rushdie affair
==
And if you've never read the essay whose title it echoes:

 Why I Am Not a Christian  (1927)^*

By Bertrand Russell

The Lecture that is here reproduced was delivered at the Battersea Town Hall on Sunday March 6, 1927, under the auspices of the South London Branch of the National Secular Society.

As your Chairman has told you, the subject about which I am going to speak to you tonight is ‘Why I am not a Christian’. Perhaps it would be as well, first of all, to try to make out what one means by the word ‘Christian’. It is used these days in a very loose sense by a great many people. Some people mean no more by it than a person who attempts to live a good life. In that sense I suppose there would be Christians in all sects and creeds; but I do not think that that is the proper sense of the word, if only because it would imply that all the people who are not Christians—all the Buddhists, Confucians, Mohammedans, and so on—are not trying to live a good life. I do not mean by a Christian any person who tries to live decently according to his lights. I think that you must have a certain amount of definite belief before you have a right to call yourself a Christian. The word does not have quite such a full-blooded meaning now as it had in the times of St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas. In those days, if a man said that he was a Christian it was known what he meant. You accepted a whole collection of creeds which were set out with great precision, and every single syllable of those creeds you believed with the whole strength of your convictions.

WHAT IS A CHRISTIAN?

Nowadays it is not quite that. We have to be a little more vague in our meaning of Christianity. I think, however, that there are two different items which are quite essential to anybody calling himself a Christian. The first is one of a dogmatic nature—namely, that you must believe in God and immortality. If you do not believe in those two things, I do not think that you can properly call yourself a Christian. Then, further than that, as the name implies, you must have some kind of belief about Christ. The Mohammedans, for instance, also believe in God and in immortality, and yet they would not call themselves Christians. I think you must have at the very lowest the belief that Christ was, if not divine, at least the best and wisest of men. If you are not going to believe that much about Christ, I do not think you have any right to call yourself a Christian. Of course there is another sense which you find in Whitaker’s Almanack and in geography books, where the population of the world is said to be divided into Christians, Mohammedans, Buddhists, fetish worshippers, and so on; and in that sense we are all Christians. The geography books count us all in, but that is a purely geographical sense, which I suppose we can ignore. Therefore I take it that when I tell you why I am not a Christian I have to tell you two different things; first, why I do not believe in God and in immortality; and, secondly, why I do not think that Christ was the best and wisest of men, although I grant Him a very high degree of moral goodness.

But for the successful efforts of unbelievers in the past, I could not take so elastic a definition of Christianity as that. As I said before, in olden days it had a much more full-blooded sense. For instance, it concluded the belief in hell. Belief in eternal hell fire was an essential item of Christian belief until pretty recent times. In this country, as you know, it ceased to be an essential item because of a decision of the Privy Council, and from that decision the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York dissented; but in this country our religion is settled by Act of Parliament, and therefore the Privy Council was able to override Their Graces and hell was no longer necessary to a Christian. Consequently I shall not insist that a Christian must believe in hell... (continues)

https://twitter.com/iSecularBuddha

Making Make-Believe More Realistic and Real Life More Make-Believe

Quiz Question

1.  Who was inducted into the WWE hall of fame, and later on became the President of the United States?

2. Around what decade did celebrity obsessed media (tabloids) come around?

3.  What big step was taken in the 1990's by instyle, Times Inc's?

4. what ground breaking event lead to the idea of reality t.v.?



Discussion Questions

1. Are you, or have you, ever been deceived by life that your TV was portraying?

2.  how can the things we talked about today correlate to people in a religious aspect?

Exiting life on your own terms

What do you think of Ulla’s statement about exiting life “on my own terms”?

When I read Ulla’s narrative entitled “The Road Less Traveled”, I related to her because I have visited Gdansk, Poland, formerly Danzig. I have viewed the photographs of the city before and after WWII which resulted in about 90% of the city being reduced to rubble, like the images we are seeing of Syrian cities.

I suspect that most people would like to enjoy their last years as Ulla is by enjoying herself taking, “exciting trips with the Sierra Club,” “downhill skiing,” and traveling all over the country and the world. Unfortunately, most people will not be able to enjoy those pursuits, because they cannot afford them, or are in poor health.  I have spoken to several elderly people who just hope that their mind does not deteriorate in their later years and Ulla’s seems pretty good when this was written.

For myself, when I reflect on the massacre of students in Parkland, Florida and the bombings by the Syrian government which killed many innocent children, I want to use the time left to me to do something to try to make the world a little better. Sadly, none of us know when that last day or moment will be and I am always interested to hear an individual’s response to a question, if you knew this was going to be your last day alive, what would you do today? For those seventeen students in Parkland, FL, they never got to make that choice, and for over one hundred people on average that die daily on our highways, they too never get choice.

While you can, live and enjoy each day and if you can help someone and make their life a little better, do so. When Scott Beigel, a teacher at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida went to school, he probably gave no thought to what he would do on the last day of his life, but he will be remembered for what he did before that day and what he did during it.

“He was a hero before he saved these lives. Just as many people who will be talking about Scott would be calling him a hero even if this didn’t occur. Obviously, a tragedy,” Beigel’s sister Melissa Zech said Saturday.

“He died shielding his students from gunfire. He made the ultimate sacrifice to do what he so often effortlessly did — make the lives of other people better,” his friend Matt Hipps, a first-year director at Dalton State University in Georgia, wrote on Facebook the morning after the shootings.

Scott Beigel leaves behind his parents, a sister, and a girlfriend whom he planned to marry.

Kelsey Friend, one of Beigel’s students, told CNN that he was shot outside the classroom door he’d held open for fleeing students when he went to lock it after ushering everyone inside.

She also told ABC’s “Good Morning America” she believes the killer bypassed the room, figuring no one was inside, when he saw Biegel lying by the door. Kelsey says Beigel saved her life.

“Mr. Beigel was my hero and he still will forever be my hero. I will never forget the actions that he took for me and for fellow students in the classroom,” Kelsey told CNN. “I am alive today because of him. If I could see him right now ... I’d give him a huge teddy bear to say thank you. But, unfortunately, I can’t do that.”

Presentation questions for life after death from Hindu, Islamic, and Atheist perspective.

Nora, Malika, and Jon.

1. What is the idea of eternal recurrence?
2. What are some of the reasons that belief in the afterlife is so common?
3. What is shaped by your deeds?
4. How many "lives" does a soul have?
5. What are your personal beliefs on life after death?
6. Do you believe reincarnation is possible?

Midterm Study Guide

Midterm Study Guide

Quiz Jan.23
1. Name two of the ways you can earn a base in our class. (See "course requirements" & other info in the sidebar & on the syllabus)
2. How many bases must you earn, for each run you claim on the daily scorecard?
3. How do you earn your first base in each class?
4. Can you earn bases from the daily quiz if you're not present?
5. How can you earn bases on days when you're not present?
6. What should you write in your daily personal log?
7. Suppose you came to class one day, turned on the computer/projector and opened the CoPhi site, had 3 correct answers on the daily quiz, and had posted a comment, a discussion question,  and an alternate quiz question before class. How many runs would you claim in your personal log and on the scorecard that day?
8. How many bases do you get for posting a short, relevant weekly essay of at least 250 words?
9. What are Dr. Oliver's office hours? Where is his office? What is his email address?
10. How do critics who conflate physicalism with eliminative materialism mis-portray atheists?

11. Why isn't atheism parasitic on religion?

12. Does Baggini agree that absence of evidence is never evidence of absence?

13. What did David Hume point out about our tendencies of belief?

14. Give an example of an abductive argument supporting atheism.

15. Why isn't atheism a faith position?

Quiz Jan 25
1. The Euthyphro Dilemma implies what about the properties of goodness?
2. What is Kierkegaard's (and Woody Allen's) existentialist point about Abraham and morality?
3. Morality is about acting in whose best interests?
4. What's the "first step in moral thinking"?
5. Does Baggini think it matters whether judgments like "pain is bad" are factual?
6. Did Sartre deny that human life lacks purpose or meaning?
7. What's problematic about seeking meaning in life by serving somebody else's purposes? [See Rick & Morty on passing the butter, below]
8. What "vital point" do we miss, if we focus too much on goals?
9. What's the nirvana dilemma?

Quiz Jan 30, JB 5-7
1. "Anaxagoras is the earliest historical figure to have been indicted for atheism" (Jennifer Michael Hecht, Doubt: A History... & see Tim Whitmarsh's Battling the Gods: Atheism in the Ancient World - "Disbelief in the supernatural is as old as the hills"), but the first "avowedly atheist work" was by whom? Who does Baggini name as some of his ancient precursors?
2. Did original Marxist communism advocate religious oppression?
3. Which of the traditional god arguments does Baggini find "philosophically interesting" but banal?
4. How do most believers justify their faith, according to Baggini?
5. What methodological principle does Baggini invoke, to reject the imposition of stringent standards of evidence and truth?

6. What's a humanist?

Quiz Feb 1 AA Intro, 1

1. "A lot of women are turned off by" what perceived demographic imbalance in contemporary atheism?

2. What important link with "potentially damaging implications" has begun to be explored by "only a handful of studies"?

3. What 'ism are New Atheists commonly accused of committing?

4. How does Anthony Grayling define humanism?

5. What prominent 19th century African-American said he would "welcome atheism..."

Quiz Feb 6 AA 2-5
1. What common misunderstanding of those who leave the faith does Lynnette attribute to many Christians?
2. What comforted Lynnette in compensation for her father's inadequacies?
3. How did Lynnette talk to God? (What did she take to mean that He was telling her something?)
4. Why does Lynnette feel happier as a nontheist?
5. For what was Chris taught sin is responsible?
6. What led Chris to reject hell?
7. What existentialist philosophers did Chris read? What did he conclude about the origins of morality?
8. What puzzled Cora about prayer?
9. What did Cora read that shocked her?
10. Striving for "perfect compliance" with Mormon principles prevents what?
11. What choices did Naima not know she had?

Quiz Feb 8, AA 6-10

1. How does James say the Holy Spirit communicates with members of LDS?

2. Mormons support what with a feeling of moral duty?

3. Fear of what confrontation made James reluctant to come out as an atheist?

4. Where did James take refuge?

5. Shawn's parents' advanced degrees did nothing to... ?
6. Adults who claim godliness are also children in what sense?
7. How did Shawn's parents' generation view children?
8. What does David say psychologists call a hardwired predisposition to infer a God who answers prayers?
9. David struggled with filling our what part of an online form?
10. What tradition focuses on altering the "condition(s) requiring illusions such as religiosity"?

Quiz Feb 13 AA 11-15
1. How did Billy Graham scare David?
2. What feelings did David often have in response to conversations with classmates at his small Christian college?
3.What was David's reaction to listening to Julia Sweeney?
4. What struck David as ridiculous, barbaric, and petty?
5. What do some studies show about marital satisfaction among the religious?
6. What was more important to Ethan than finding an atheist partner?
7. What calculation led Ethan to consider his chances of finding love bleak?
8. Does Ethan say he was raised atheist?
9. What did Sen question about her brother's fate?
10. What was Ronnelle's mother reaction to his coming out?

Quiz Feb 15, AA 16-20

1. By what early teachings did Kevin consider himself "infected"?

2. Who coined the term "atheophobia"?

3. How do most theists deal with distasteful bible verses?

4. What does Kevin consider his parental responsibility with regard to religion?

5. Which of Dan Barker's principles does Kevin prefer to the ten commandments?

6. What ultimately made Amy an atheist?

7. What saddens Adrienne about her sisters?

8. To what stage of a relationship is agnosticism analogous?

9. What language did Justus find "stilted"?

10. What podcast helped Justus become more comfortable with his loss of faith?

Quiz Feb 20 AA 21-23
1. What's the name of Pam's atheist group, and what do they do?
2. What did Pam think she needed, as a child, in order to understand religion?
3. Who was the first openly-atheist person Pam met?
4. What kind of a person does Pam say it makes you, if you're openly an atheist?
5. Why does Pam think it important for atheists to come out?
6. What "murky line" makes it hard to identify religious harassment?
7. What does Sam wonder about theists who are offended by atheists?
8. What pseudonym provided cover for the Amarillo Atheists Society?
9. What have the courts said about withholding medical treatment from children on religious grounds?
10. What is the Bible passage that Jehovah's Witnesses invoke to justify refusing blood transfusions?
11. What book changed Camilo's life?
12. What line do clinical psychology students straddle?

Quiz Feb 22 AA 24-End

1. How does John think it's possible to talk about his opinions openly without getting into a big fight?
2. What's a good icebreaker?
3. How many millennials are disenchanted with religion?
4. Comparisons of theists and atheists demonstrate what?
5. What puzzled Ulla about God, as a kid?
6. What's Ulla's reaction to pictures from the Hubble telescope?
7. How does Ulla react to "I will pray for you"?
8. What did Betty think the Presbyterian choir in her childhood church was doing?
9. What's Betty's view of people praying for her husband's dementia?
10. What did Margaret's Congregationalist-Universalist father believe about an afterlife?
11. What misconception was perpetrated by House and Bones?
12. Why isn't Margaret afraid of death?

Up next: Susan Jacoby

“That so many manage to accommodate belief systems encompassing both the natural and the supernatural is a testament not to the compatibility of science and religion but to the flexibility, in both the physical and metaphysical senses, of the human brain.” 

“We do want our fellow citizens to respect our deeply held conviction that the absence of an afterlife lends a greater, not a lesser, moral importance to our actions on earth.”

“I am approached with the most opposite opinions and advice, and that by religious men, who are equally certain that they represent the Divine will.” 

Presentation post for 2/22 Speaking to God

So, how about a couple of atheists talking about talking to god? This'll be fun.

In light of the topic and his passing today, here are some of Billy Graham's thoughts on the topic:
"Prayer 101: How Do I Talk To God?"

And a couple of interesting reads besides
via NPR:
"Prayer May Reshape Your Brain... And Your Reality"
 via Psychiatric Times:
"Neutotheology: Are We Hardwired for God?"
via Breitbart (click at own risk):
"Roy Moore Says 'God's Will' Determines Election Outcome"
via Newsweek: 
"Like Mike Pence, Oprah Winfrey Speaks to A Higher Power: 'If God Actually Wanted Me to Run' for President, 'Wouldn't God Kinda Tell Me?"

And a few questions, not so much a quiz, but more to get everyone thinking on what we're thinking on
1) Do you, or did you, pray or speak to god on any kind of regular basis?
2) Do you/did you expect an answer? In what sort of time frame?
3) Did he ever return the call? What did he say/how did it feel?
4) What do you think of those that say god explicitly told them to do something?

Posts are encouraged, see you lot tomorrow.

Billy Graham, R.I.P.

The Rev. Billy Graham, a North Carolina farmer’s son who preached to millions in stadium events he called crusades, becoming a pastor to presidents and the nation’s best-known Christian evangelist for more than 60 years, died on Wednesday at his home in Montreat, N.C. He was 99.

His death was confirmed by Jeremy Blume, a spokesman for the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association.

Mr. Graham had dealt with a number of illnesses in his last years, including prostate cancer, hydrocephalus (a buildup of fluid in the brain) and symptoms of Parkinson’s disease.

Mr. Graham spread his influence across the country and around the world through a combination of religious conviction, commanding stage presence and shrewd use of radio, television and advanced communication technologies.

A central achievement was his encouraging evangelical Protestants to regain the social influence they had once wielded, reversing a retreat from public life that had begun when their efforts to challenge evolution theory were defeated in the Scopes trial in 1925.
(continues)
==
How Billy Graham’s Movement Lost Its Way

In 1949, under an enormous tent in Los Angeles, a young fundamentalist preacher from North Carolina named Billy Graham began preaching nightly. The initial plan was for the Greater Los Angeles Revival to last for three weeks. Attendance was underwhelming at first, with thousands of seats unfilled. As closing night drew near, the local organizing committee was uncertain about whether to extend the meetings. They decided to ask God for a clear sign, like the one Gideon received in the Old Testament.

“It came at four-thirty the next morning,” Graham writes in his autobiography, “Just As I Am.” A jangling phone awoke Graham in his hotel room. On the other end was the popular entertainer Stuart Hamblen, one of radio’s first singing cowboys, begging to meet. As Graham tells it, he dressed and met Hamblen and his wife. After they talked, Hamblen “gave his life to Christ in a child-like act of faith.” Graham said it was then that he told the organizers that the crusade should go on. Hamblen discussed his newfound faith on his radio program, and, during a subsequent revival meeting, Graham was startled to find his tent “crawling with reporters and photographers.” Graham learned that the publishing giant William Randolph Hearst had issued an edict to all of the editors in his newspaper chain: “Puff Graham.” The evangelist had never met Hearst, but the magnate’s sons later told Graham that their father had come to the revival, in disguise, with his mistress, Marion Davies. Attendance swelled, and an estimated three hundred and fifty thousand people eventually passed through the canvas cathedral, as it came to be called, in the course of eight weeks.

The Los Angeles revival turned Graham into a national figure at a turning point in the history of American Protestantism. Religious leaders such as Harold Ockenga, the pastor of the Congregationalist Park Street Church, in Boston, and Carl F. H. Henry, a theologian of Fuller Theological Seminary, outside Los Angeles, had become increasingly critical of fundamentalism’s push to separate believers from society. But they were also uncomfortable with the theological liberalism of church reformers who had embraced modernist thought. They sought to unite Protestant conservatives in a broader movement, New Evangelicalism, which they hoped would maintain a commitment to historic Christian tenets while actively engaging with the prevailing culture. Graham would become the leading figure in this movement, which went on to eclipse mainline Protestantism as the dominant force in American religious life.

Graham’s death, on Wednesday, at the age of ninety-nine, comes as that movement is enduring fissures that have parallels to those that he and his brethren sought to mend more than a half-century ago. From the mid-nineteen-seventies through the mid-eighties, evangelicalism, led by the Reverend Jerry Falwell, began its steady march rightward into the embrace of the Republican Party. The movement came to be defined by its social conservatism, though Graham himself tried to steer clear of issues like abortion. “I’m just going to preach the gospel and am not going to get off on all these hot-button issues,” he told the Times, in 2005. “If I get on these other subjects, it divides the audience on an issue that is not the issue I’m promoting. I’m just promoting the gospel.”

Other evangelical leaders, including Graham’s eldest son, Franklin, who has inherited his father’s mantle as the leader of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, adopted a very different tack. Many evangelical leaders have been stalwart defenders of Donald Trump, even in the face of allegations of adultery, sexual assault, and harassment, believing they have found in him a staunch ally. “I believe Donald Trump is a good man,” Franklin Graham said on CNN, last month. “He did everything wrong as a candidate and he won, and I don’t understand it. Other than I think God put him there.” Last November, many of these same leaders continued to back Roy Moore in his Senate bid in Alabama, despite allegations he had sexually assaulted teen-age girls.

The result is a brewing existential crisis, particularly among younger believers, many of whom are choosing to shed the evangelical label. Graham and his cohort sought to forge a movement that was distinct from the fundamentalism of their day, yet that is precisely what modern evangelicalism has come to be associated with. The overriding interest of Graham and other neo-evangelicals, as they were called, was in spurring a religious revival in the United States. That was why they sought to overcome the divisions that beset Protestants at the time. The question, today, is whether evangelicalism’s leaders remain primarily interested in the spiritual, as Graham was, or if their agenda has become purely political. If it turns out to be the latter, that may well spell the end of the movement Graham helped forge.

Philosophy cartoon

Philosophy cartoon - February 18, 2018

http://beetlebailey.com/comic_tag/plato/

Alt questions fr Ath in Amer by Brewster (24-End)

1.       What group demonstrates the highest level of religious engagement compared to any other age group? (211).

2.       A strong commitment to religious beliefs may provide some older adults with what? (212).

3.       Instead of the term “atheist,” how does Ursula like to think of herself? (217).

4.       Why does Ursula say it is easier to be a nonbeliever? (219).

5.       According to Elizabeth Clemens, Nothing destroys Christianity like? (228).

6.       Margaret says if there is an afterlife, she would like to get answers to what two questions? (237).

7.       Margaret would like to see a time when it will be what? (237),

8.       What does Dr. Melanie Brewster hope that this book represents? (240).

 Alternative discussion questions.

1.       As you read the narratives of individuals who became or identified as an atheist, could you imagine another writer compiling narratives to fill a book entitled,  “Theist in America.” Would you be interested in reading their narratives?

2.       Do you foresee a time when nonbelievers will be in the majority? When and why?

3.       Are young people today less interested in the spiritual benefits from attending church and more interested in the social benefits?

Alt questions fr. Ath in America by M. E. Brewster (21-23)

1.       What was a standard description of the United States’s enemies in the 1950s and 1960s? (187).

2.       Rather than tell people that she was an atheist, what would Pam Zerba simply say? (188).

3.       According to Pam, what was one of the most distressing things about being an atheist in central Pennsylvania? (190).

4.       Within psychology there is a great impetus to be what? (195).

5.       How long does Samuel Needleman think that it will take before we shall see an evolution toward the acceptance of nonbelievers? (200).

6.       What two events did Dr. Camilo Ortiz’s say almost made him a believer? (203).

7.       What did Dr. Ortiz want to be for students who were doubting their religious beliefs? (205).

 Alternative discussion questions.

1.       The personal revelations of individuals in Atheist in America remind us of the challenge many people face when they dare to be different or to express themselves in a way that deviates from what the society or culture of the times deems acceptable. While their actions are admirable, how many students when confronted with the opportunity to start a good high paying career will choose to indicate that they are an atheist knowing that that response might result in not being hired? If they have started a family, that choice could mean that their family will suffer. If you were they, would you still be open about being an atheist?

2.       Why does religion have such a hold on the American’s psyche? Are we so consumed with making a living to provide necessities for our family or are we so overworked that when we finally have a few moments to ourselves, we’d rather watch TV or do something pleasurable? Perhaps many people just want to tune out the real world and not reflect on their role in bettering humanity?

Quizzes Feb 20, 22

Reporters, remember to post your quizzes.

AA 21-23
1. What's the name of Pam's atheist group, and what do they do?

2. What did Pam think she needed, as a child, in order to understand religion?

3. Who was the first openly-atheist person Pam met?

4. What kind of a person does Pam say it makes you, if you're openly an atheist?

5. Why does Pam think it important for atheists to come out?

6. What "murky line" makes it hard to identify religious harassment?

7. What does Sam wonder about theists who are offended by atheists?

8. What pseudonym provided cover for the Amarillo Atheists Society?

9. What have the courts said about withholding medical treatment from children on religious grounds?

10. What is the Bible passage that Jehovah's Witnesses invoke to justify refusing blood transfusions?

11. What book changed Camilo's life?

12. What line do clinical psychology students straddle?

	Hemant Mehta (@hemantmehta)
2/18/18, 1:08 PM Newt Gingrich: “Atheist Philosophy” More Dangerous to Christianity Than Terrorists dlvr.it/QGssyg pic.twitter.com/wLXvNlBcqU

	Conatus News (@ConatusNews)
2/17/18, 9:00 AM An in-depth look into what US laws and constitutional history actually say about the separation of church and state! An important reminder in these times. #secularism #FreedomFromReligion with @AndrewLSeidelconatusnews.com/religion-secul…

	Brian D. Earp (@briandavidearp)
2/19/18, 12:00 PM Tennessee GOP Unleashes Attack on “Radical Atheist” Running for State Senate buff.ly/2FdTwHY pic.twitter.com/jBy4mjotcj

DQ

• Do you have (or want) an "atheist group"?
• Do you consider arguing about religion "fun"?
• Do you understand or can you explain what it means to have a "personal relationship with Jesus"?
• Can you suggest any metaphors ("glasses" etc.) that might help nonreligious people better understand the religious mindset, or vice versa?
• Is there a big difference, in your mind, between not wanting to go to church and not believing in God?
• Have churches become more like interest groups or clubs? 187
• Does the word Atheist still sound "ugly and harsh" to you? Is Humanist better? Freethinker? Skeptic? Bright? ...
• Should your career choice determine your willingness to be open and honest about your (dis)beliefs? 188
• Are you often asked what church you go to, or if you worship Satan? What's your reply?
• Is it rude or offensive to compare God to Santa Claus?
• Do you always refrain from discussing politics and religion with coworkers and friends? Or do you "bring your whole identity with you to work" and everywhere else?
• Why do you think so many theists feel threatened by nonbelievers? 198
• Does the Bible Belt really welcome Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims? 200
• Do pluralists patronize too much nonsense in the name of tolerance? 201
• Is there a single book that's had the greatest impact in forming your present state of (dis)belief?
• Would you ever attend an atheist convention?

Quiz Feb 22

1. How does John think it's possible to talk about his opinions openly without getting into a big fight?

2. What's a good icebreaker?

3. How many millennials are disenchanted with religion?

4. Comparisons of theists and atheists demonstrate what?

5. What puzzled Ulla about God, as a kid?

6. What's Ulla's reaction to pictures from the Hubble telescope?

7. How does Ulla react to "I will pray for you"?

8. What did Betty think the Presbyterian choir in her childhood church was doing?

9. What's Betty's view of people praying for her husband's dementia?

10. What did Margaret's Congregationalist-Universalist father believe about an afterlife?

11. What misconception was perpetrated by House and Bones?

12. Why isn't Margaret afraid of death?

DQ

• Do you always refrain from discussing politics and religion with coworkers and friends? Or do you "bring your whole identity with you to work" and everywhere else?
• COMMENT: "God never gives you more than you can handle."
• What's your favorite example of atheist humor?
• What puzzled you about God, as a kid?
• Do you agree that it's intellectually "easier to be a nonbeliever"? 219
• How do you react to "I will pray for you"?
• Does Ulla's life in retirement sound appealing to you? 222-3
• What do you think of Ulla's statement about exiting life "on my own terms"? 223
• Were you afraid, as a child, that God was watching your every move?
• What would your heaven be like? 237

Happy Valentines Day!

Is it possible to prevent indoctrination of youth?

Essay for Feb 13

Most of us were subjected to political, religious, and social indoctrination before we became teenagers. While we have been learning of a few individuals who have de-converted from a particular religious belief, most people believe as their parents do or have been instructed by them to believe. That is easily understood when you think of the early interactions that you had with your immediate family or relatives.

If your family supported Republican candidates, then you generally only heard good things about Republicans. Any negative news about Republican behavior would be filtered by your parents to exclude it from you. The same is true of Democrats and today more than in the past, hypocrisy is revealed by replaying passed video clips as they twist themselves into pretzels trying to justify their current stance on an issue compared to their stance five years ago on the same issue. For example, both Senate Majority Leader McConnell and Speaker Ryan were predicting apocalyptic consequences as a result of expenditures that added to the deficit five years ago and this week when it was convenient for them, they added to the deficit saying that a growing economy would resolve it. The Democrats made the same counter argument five years ago.

If you are born in the United States, most of you had parents who belong to either the Catholic church or one of 200 major Protestant denominations, so you would have heard or read stories from the Old and New Testaments and nothing about other religions or their writings. You would have been taught  the “Founding Fathers,” supposed beliefs while ignoring what individuals like, Franklin and Jefferson said about religions. These untruths about them would be handed down from generation to generation. Today, if you attend a public university and you do a little research you discover that what you’ve been told is sadly not true or only half-true at best; however, if you show the proof to someone who has bought into the myth or misrepresentation, your proof, even if acknowledged, will generally be dismissed quickly.

If you were born in China, you might know very little about Judaism or Christianity, so how much of what you believe is determined by your place of birth? So many different cultures have belief and non-belief systems that are so different from those in the west. Some people in the U.S. were already disconnected from other cultures because they viewed them as inferior. Now as it is starting to dawn on a few of them that they are not inferior, there seems to be an effort to retrench and erect barriers to prevent reasonable cultural exchanges. We may soon find ourselves walled in to our detriment.

 Will there be a time in the far distant future when children are not indoctrinated, but instead taught to think critically about political, religious, and social issues? I have my doubts.