From Gregory Paul, a freelance paleontologist, researcher, and artist:

Although there has been contention between the forces of supernaturalism and the (until recently small number of) rationalists going back to ancient times, the struggle ramped up 150 years ago when On the Origin of the Species scientifically removed the need for a great designer. Since then, it has widely been assumed that the spiritual portion of the culture war is primarily an ideological struggle in which the side with the better arguments, or public relations campaign, will win. This view is unsubstantiated, however, in that it is not based on a scientific analysis of data published in the technical literature. Instead, it is the sort of conversational opinion that too easily becomes the conventional wisdom.
I am increasingly fed up with conversational opinions of all stripes, and for the last few years have been working to solve some of the basic problems concerning popular religion—why is it popular, why is it failing in the Western democracies, and do societies need religion to be successful as theists contend (to the degree that nonbelievers are the targets of discrimination in much of the world)?
Sociological research by me and others is producing results that at long last are answering some of the basic questions about popular religion and secularism. The 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth happened to see the publication of an unprecedented number of technical papers on the subject, four, which were built upon a series of earlier studies. It is becoming increasingly clear that much of the conventional wisdom about religion is wrong. Most people do not believe or not believe in the gods because they have examined and weighed the arguments, or even because they have been persuaded by propaganda from one side or the other, or are following their heritage. Nor do highly religious societies perform better than those that have abandoned supernaturalistic faith in the context of democracy.
A remarkably clear pattern provides the critical information for understanding why religion is and is not popular.
Read the rest of this entry »

From Brint Montgomery, who teaches philosophy at Southern Nazarene University:

In my mind, it all started with those signs on the sides of city buses. You know, the ones that say things like, “You can be good without God” or “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” There are quite a few other pithy sayings as well, if you care to look. Soon enough, it hit me—the quaint social roles of the sly village atheist or disenfranchised ex-believer just ain’t what they used to be.
What’s put the “new” in the New Atheist movement is their assertiveness, or even outright aggressiveness, in the public space. For instance, at a recent speech at the University of Toronto, Christopher Hitchens exhorted that “religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred, and contempt,” and he is well known for practicing what he preaches when on the speaking and debate circuit.
This is in contrast with the more laid-back style of traditional atheists, such as that practiced by Paul Kurtz, the original founder of the Center for Inquiry (among other secular and skeptical organizations). Kurtz sought to offer a positive alternative to religion, known as eupraxsophy—roughly, a collection of philosophical commitments and practices that provide a cosmic outlook and ethical guide to living. He often joined in alliances with religious groups on matters of social justice, and hence had a much more cooperative disposition with religious institutions (though not with religion itself). Fortunately for everyone, some atheists, like Kurtz, dissent and modify their claws.
Then there’s Sam Harris, a subspecies of atheist with yet a different rhetorical manner than either of these two kinds. He takes a somewhat middle-of-the-road approach between the aggressive and cooperative style. “It’s really just a matter of conversation, and releasing these taboos that prevent us from applying pressure to people’s religious beliefs,” he says. As an example of where pressure is needed, he points to evolution-denying politicians: “there’s no penalty paid by these guys endorsing the starkest ignorance about the state of our knowledge about biology.” In Harris’ view, “there has to be a price paid.” Social pressure is being successfully applied to racism, which has fallen into disrepute in the last 50 years, and “real progress” has been made in talking about this social problem; likewise, he argues, “we can make the same kind of progress in talking about religion.”
Harris might want to recalibrate his manometer, though, since the pressure against racism and the pressure against religion are not of the same variety.
Read the rest of this entry »

From Jeff Schweitzer, a marine biologist, neurophysiologist, and the author of Beyond Cosmic Dice:

The early days of the holiday season have brought into sharp relief a deeply disturbing trend that seems innocent enough at first glance, but in fact is the genesis of much that ails humanity. I speak of asymmetrical expectations borne from the destructive belief that one faith has more validity than another. Oddly, this pernicious impact of religion is seen most clearly during the secular holiday of Thanksgiving.
Through the miracle of marriage, one part of my extended family keeps a kosher home, and this plays an important part in the story to unfold. What does kosher mean? Reaching back to the archaic ways of nomadic tribes and rituals dating thousands of years, kashrut describes a body of Jewish laws that proscribe certain foods, explain what foods must be separated, and detail how certain foods must be prepared. Kosher can be used as a synonym for kashrut, but is more often used more restrictively to mean the foods (rather than the laws regulating those foods) that meet the standards for consumption and ritual use.
Kosher is not only broadly and badly misunderstood by non-Jews, but by the Jewish community as well. Ask any of your Jewish friends why kosher laws were developed, and almost all will say to promote better health. This is the biggest and most annoying myth of all, that kosher laws are some kind of primitive health code. The idea is complete nonsense. Yes, the methods described by kosher slaughter are sanitary, and were ahead of their times. But kosher laws are not driven by or a consequence of health concerns. Camel and rabbit are no less healthy than cow or goat. Having a cloven hoof does not make an animal healthier to eat than one that is not so endowed. And grape products, like wine, made by non-Jews are not in any way distinguishable from Jewish wines from a health perspective. Just compare a Manischewitz to a Rothschild.
The prohibition against eating meat with dairy is also entirely arbitrary, with no associated health benefit. Perhaps gulping down a huge glass of milk after eating an 18-ounce prime rib would interfere with digestion, but a little dab of butter used in basting a turkey would not. Some rabbis prohibit the consumption of turkey altogether, while others do not, because the poor bird was unknown to the authors of the Torah. The symbol of Thanksgiving remains permanently in kosher limbo.
Kosher laws are not health laws, and they are completely and utterly arbitrary. The only reason why Jews observe kosher law is because the Torah says to, and for no other reason. The Torah is perfectly silent on why the laws are promulgated. Not once does the Torah explain the chosen from the forbidden; never does the Torah state why a falcon drumstick is prohibited but a duck breast is OK with God.
The other prominent myth is that kosher and Jewish are synonymous. Not true by a wide margin. Keeping kosher is a choice, and not a popular one at that. At most, only 15 percent of American Jews observe kosher law. The inverse means that 85 percent of American Jews believe that keeping kosher is irrelevant to being a good, pious Jew. Let us be clear: The vast majority of American Jews are no more kosher than the Catholic priest down the street.
And so now we come to Thanksgiving dinner, hosted by my extended family. Non-Jews, kosher Jews, and non-kosher Jews all converge onto the tableau of a Norman Rockwell painting for the quintessential American celebration. The fireplace glows with a warm heat while guests gather around, drinks in one hand, nosh in the other. The din of happy conversation mutes the flurry of last-minute instructions escaping from the kitchen.
But trouble is brewing beneath the oil-painted veneer of family bliss.
Read the rest of this entry »

From Rabbi Richard Address, director of the department of Jewish Family Concerns at the Union for Reform Judaism:

Last month, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act went into effect. In an editorial lauding the act, The New York Times explains how the law “ushers in a new era. The law prohibits employers from asking for genetic tests or taking into account an employees genetic background for hiring, firing, or promotions. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of genetic background in group and individual health insurance plans.”
There is no doubt that we are living in an age of great transformation with regard to broadening the genetic frontier. There is also no doubt that all religious communities will have to re-examine how they view and talk about related issues, such as surgery done in the womb to correct genetic defects, pregnancy termination, aging, and even premarital counseling.
Many rabbis (and I am sure other clergy as well) now regularly ask that couples of child-bearing age whom they are marrying have a series of genetic tests (now readily available) to determine who may be carrying potentially harmful genes. This requires clergy to become familiar with diseases and ethical options that may be discussed within their faith tradition. Likewise, they will have to deal with the difficult issue of counseling those who discover they are positive carriers of a specific gene—discussing options and helping parents determine if and when they will tell their children. Already, for example, many clergy have had to counsel women who have tested positive for the BRCA1 gene (a breast cancer marker) and now face decisions about their own treatment but how and when to tell their daughters.
The new act is welcome and provides, we hope, protection from discrimination under the law. It also challenges faith communities to make sure these issues are raised within clergy discussions and seminaries. This revolution is here to stay and its potential for good is powerful. The realities of ethical and moral choices are also real and stark, and need to be addressed.