It’s certainly a valid criticism of most of the churches I’ve gone to, as many Churches aren’t friendly to nonreligious people wanting to see what things are like. I’m utterly sick of people asking me “What church do you go to?”, and then seeing the look of shock on their face when I tell them I don’t go to any church, I’m not religious, or (worse!) if I was to use the word “atheist”.

The quote being discussed by the Friendly Christian is as follows:

“I’m not religious. I don’t think much about God, except when I am in a pinch and need some special favors. I have no particular reason to think he’ll deliver, but I sometimes take a shot anyway. Other than that, I’m just not that interested in God.”

This, to me, sounds like a person who has no reason to believe in God except for the simple fact that many others seem to have this belief. If one is raised in a society where God is almost universally accepted, if one made no effort to actively think about God, what possible conclusions could that person come to?

This is where I think the Friendly Christian has got it wrong. This person doesn’t sound like someone who’s been shunned by the church, but someone who (quite legitimately, in my opinion) has no interest in God because the idea has little or no influence on their life. In an ideal world (one where personal beliefs in supernatural beings remained personal – in the sense that your beliefs were unable to affect my way of life), I think such a lack of interest in God would be quite common.

That’s not to say an interest in God is a bad thing, however. As you might have discovered, however, I do have an interest in religion and the concepts of God. These ideas do have an influence on my life because our politicians make them relevant, and because I want to understand why so many people have these beliefs. I find the idea of God interesting from a historical and cultural point of view, and want to learn more.

Are you interested in God? If not, why not?

1. Well, not so recently, but it was recently when I first drafted this post. As you can probably tell if you’ve been subscribing to my blog, I’ve been quite slack recently. I won’t bore you with the personal details, but lets just say there’s been a lot on my plate. My apologies, and I’ll hopefully get back to a more reasonable blogging schedule again now.

Update (26/08): Thanks to all of you who are spreading the word, with any luck they’ll get their required members through this post alone! Two points to clarify:

1. This post was in no way authorised or endorsed by the party – it’s just my way of trying to help out.
2. If you’re not eligible to vote in Australia, don’t try and join up, but help spread the word if you know other Aussie Atheists.

Hey all you Aussies out there (if you’re not an Aussie, keep reading, you might still be able to help by spreading the word),

I recently received an email from Frank Gomez of the Secular Party of Australia (previously the Freedom from Religion Party), which I wanted to get your help with. Members of the Secular Party are hoping to run in this year’s election, but as the party doesn’t have enough members yet, they’ll need to run as independents, giving them a much lower chance of success.

All you need to do, if you want to help, is to fill out and mail (yes, snail mail) in the form below to join the party – membership is free. For 20 seconds of your time, and the cost of a 50c stamp, you could help Atheists get a stronger voice in Australian parliament.

• Secular Party of Australia Membership Application

Perhaps if you’re not an Aussie yourself, but might have Australian readers on your own blog, or know of some Aussie Atheists? Please help get the word out there, either direct them to this blog, or post something on your own blog if you can!

If anyone’s interested, I’m posting the full text of the email below.

Hi members and supporters,

The party’s executive has decided to contest this year’s Federal election. However, as we do not have the numbers yet to register as a party, candidates will have to run as independents. This means that we cannot use the words “Secular” or “Freedom From Religion” on ballot papers.

I am writing to all of you because we need your membership of the party to be official so that it can count for registration.

I have attached a membership form, and for those of you for whom I have a postal address you will receive (or may have already have received) these in the mail also.

I urge you all to complete and send back the attached form to the below address.

I also wish to ask you whether you know someone else who would be interested in joining.

We currently have around 300 members and need only 200 more in order to register as a party for this year’s election. Registering the party would mean being able to use the party’s name and abbreviations in how to vote cards and ballot papers, and would increase out vote many fold.

If every member of the party sent back two forms – their own and for someone else – then we would reach the 500 we need in a matter of weeks.

Otherwise we need to wait another 3 years to contest as a registered party. That’s another 3 years of more religion in politics – whoever wins the election. MAKE A DIFFERENCE !!

FRANK GOMEZ
SECULAR PARTY www.secular.org.au
NATIONAL VICE-PRESIDENT
19 Fishers Reserve
Petersham NSW 2049

While I don’t think Australia will ever be as dominated by fundamentalist religious dogma as is the case in the USA, it’s scary to see religion and politics closely intertwined in Australia, as it’s certainly possibly that we could head down a similar path. Our two major party leaders, Kevin Rudd, and John Howard are both strong Christians (or, so they claim), as are many of the other Members of Parliament.

Democrats¹ leader Lyn Allison says there are too many federal MPs with strong religious views.

Senator Allison says the separation of church and state is becoming blurred.

“The Prime Minister this morning said that there were a great number of Members of Parliament in Coalition ranks with very strong ties to the Christian church,” she said. “I know this is a Christian country but people with very strong religious views are heavily over-represented, if I can put it that way, in the Parliament,” she said.²

I’ve always been a swinging voter, and I don’t support either major Australian party – my votes in the past have gone to the Greens, the Democrats, or the odd independent (with the unfortunate necessity of nominating both of the major parties somewhere with my preferences). It worries me, however, when I can see the line between politics and religion in Australia getting blurred.

Some claim that comments like those of Lyn Allison are misguided, but I think it’s a legitimate concern. There’s certainly no problem with having a reasonable percentage of Christians represented in parliament (if 64% of the population are Christian, then their views might be well represented if we have 64% Christian MPs). My problem is that politics seems to be becoming more about religion than it should be, and who knows where that will lead? Honestly, I don’t care what religious views our leaders have, as long as they’re able to put their views aside when it counts. I worry that the efforts of our potential Prime Ministers to emphasise their Christianity will push the focus where it doesn’t belong.

(Oh, and sorry this post was late – I try to write one major post each Sunday, but I’ve had a rather busy weekend!)

1. A minor party in Australia
2. Donald, P., Iggulden, T. (August 2007) Howard, Rudd Woo Christians Online, ABC News

Link to Video

I can’t imagine the atheist community would have anything important to confront them about? (*cough* evolution *cough*) Anyone skilled with a camera, and able to present a good case in 30 seconds or so?

If you’ve got some ideas, check out http://www.youtube.com/debates

(via Slashdot)

I’ve been catching up on some podcasts recently, and caught an interview of Frank Gomez, the leader of the newly formed Freedom from Religion Party on John Safran’s weekly radio show “Sunday Night Safran“. For those of you who aren’t aware of the show (I’m aware there’s only a few Aussies who actually read this blog), on his show, Safran interviews many people alongside Father Bob Maguire. I’ve found a clip of the relevant part of the show (the full show is available here) – it’s a 16 minute interview, but it’s quite interesting.

Either way, looks like I might be voting for a new party come the next election…

(the 5mb MP3 is available for download here, in case the embedded player doesn’t work)

“I think we face an equal but much more sinister challenge from the left, in the shape of cultural relativism – the view that scientific truth is only one kind of truth and it is not to be especially privileged.”¹

Sure, Dawkins has a point. While I certainly would disagree with his implied (correct me if I’m wrong) view that scientific truth is the only legitimate form of truth, suggesting that scientific truth should not be privileged above that of, say, religion or even philosophy would certainly be a mistake. Religious “truth” seems almost an oxymoron, but philosophical truth does have some merit. Perhaps we could also talk about “personal” truth (gotta love Dr. Phil). Of course, if science and philosophy (or science and my “personal truth”) were to ever disagree, I’d side with science – no question.

That said, I found the link to Dawkins’ quote from Atheist Revolution, who seems to take Dawkins’ argument to some strange extreme. I started reading:

For a more current example of Dawkins’ concerns, we turn to Philadelphia where police officer Kimberlie Webb sued her department for their refusal to allow her to wear a hijab while on duty…

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission actually concluded that the police department had violated Webb’s rights by prohibiting her from wearing Muslim garb while on duty.

Fortunately, federal judge Bartle had more sense²

Now, the judge’s reasons might have some validity – he suggests that (and this is me paraphrasing) by disallowing “religious symbols and attire” puts officers in a better position to deal with varying cultures/religions of people who they have to interact with.

But, I digress. My issue is not with the judge’s decision, as I clearly don’t know enough about the facts to disagree with him. I do, however, take issue with the comments made on Atheist Revolution:

Why must freedom to practice one’s religion become freedom to practice one’s religion in public?³

Isn’t that exactly the point of the legal right to practice one’s religion freely? Things that we do in the privacy of our own home are protected by the mere fact that the government cannot enter our homes without a warrant. The only practical benefit of providing a legal freedom to practice one’s religion is to allow people to freely do this in public.

1. Dawkins, Richard (2007) Quoted in Dawkins’ Christmas Card List by James Randerson of the Guardian
2. Dawkins Says Threats to Reality-Based Community Not Limited to Right @ Atheist Revolution
3. Dawkins Says Threats to Reality-Based Community Not Limited to Right @ Atheist Revolution

Essentially, in matters for which we are unable to understand and evaluate the facts for ourselves, we try to evaluate the trustworthiness of the source.

Few of us are qualified to assess claims about the merits of string theory, the role in mercury in the etiology of autism, or the existence of repressed memories. So rather than evaluating the asserted claim itself, we instead evaluate the claim’s source. If the source is deemed trustworthy, people will believe the claim, often without really understanding it.¹

It seems only natural, and a perfectly valid way of making up your opinions about things. The problem occurs when we don’t know what sources to trust.

(Scientific claims) clash with intuitive beliefs about the immaterial nature of the soul and the purposeful design of humans and other animals — and, in the United States, these intuitive beliefs are particularly likely to be endorsed and transmitted by trusted religious and political authorities.²

If our own political leaders (Well, thankfully not my political leaders to the same degree – although he did seem a little iffy on global warming for quite a while) show an inherent distrust of science, and people are brought up to believe the church is a reputable source of scientific knowledge, is it any wonder that there’s so much distrust of science?

I’ve read suggestions by scientists that claim that it’s simply not worth arguing with creationists in public forums because those who listen to the creationists already distrust science, and nothing they say (no matter how rational) will convert them. Maybe we need to start earlier? I read a post the other day (dammed³ if I could find it again – help me out if you know what I’m talking about) that suggested the idea of creating a textbook for use in school which rationally outlined the creationist vs. evolution debate in an easy-to-understand yet scientifically accurate way. Maybe if we can help establish that scientists are the ones who should be trusted when it comes to scientific matters⁴, and not politicians or the church.

(Via A Whore in the Temple of Reason)

1. Bloom, Paul & Weisberg, Deena S. (2007) Why Do Some People Resist Science?
2. Bloom, Paul & Weisberg, Deena S. (2007) Why Do Some People Resist Science?
3. Figuratively, of course
4. I can’t believe this actually needs to be said!