Time Immortal

Agnostic writes in with a question about author Vox Day:

I’m curious what the evidence is for Vox’s statement that atheists are orders of magnitude more likely to commit murder. I know it his/her statement, but you obviously endorse it.

I’d be surprised that there is evidence of a difference at all, but certainly not a 100 fold difference.

btw - I agree with your take on the Darwin Fish - it seems an openly hostile gesture.

Vox is nothing if not open: his book, The Irrational Atheist can be downloaded for free (although I’m only going to link to the purchaseable version at Amazon.com — finding the freebie is left as an exercise to the good Reader). And it is within the pages of said book that his evidence for the statement can be found.

I can summarize it in brief, but cannot hope to do it justice without spending much more time on this post than I have to spend. Essentially, he approaches the question from a variety of directions, and by looking at different bits of data. For example, he picks apart Sam Harris “red state” argument (which incorrectly concluded that Christians committed more crimes than did non-religious folk) by breaking the analysis down past the state level and looking at things county by county.

And he notes that crime is consistently highest in “blue” counties (e.g. Democrat-supporting counties). This observation is then correlated against various bits of demographic information — including the fact that atheists and agnostics tend to be much more likely to vote “blue” than “red.”

Of course, correlation does not imply causation; more investigation is needed. Indeed, the above was basically just a glorious take-down of Harris’ errors.

To support his actual point, Vox draws on evidence from both the United States and Britain which demonstrates that while there are certainly more Christians in prison than non-Christians in both countries (which one would expect: there tend to be more Christians than non-Christians in both countries), Christianity in the prisons is actually under-represented when compared to its prevalence in the general population. Irreligion of all stripes is, on the other hand, over-represented in the prison population when compared against its prevalence in the general population, to the tune of over 300%.

As noted, it is best to just consult Vox’s book, if one wants the hard figures, and more and better exegesis with the data. But hopefully that outlines, if only broadly, where the statement originates from.

Aspentroll writes back, after a lengthy hiatus, with a response to my previous reply to him (which dates back to May of this year). I’m thinking that I will break this one up and answer it piece-by-piece, since he jumps between topics in a manner that might make for a distracting response if approached as a whole. Rest assured, O Reader, that all of the text of Aspentroll’s message will appear below, in un-edited form, and in the same order in which it arrived.

Hi I’m back. I know it’s been awhile, but, all we atheist require would be some acknowledgment from theists.

I’m not completely sure what possible relation could exist between Aspentroll’s 5-month silence and the lack of theistic acknowledgement that atheists (some? all?) apparently perceive. I’m also curious why theists — including myself — owe it to atheists to grant them any kind of acknowledgement, apart from the Christian mandate to acknowledge all people as fallen creations of God in need of salvation from sin and death? No such entitlement, apart from the mentioned caveat, exists…at least, not to my knowledge.

Former President Geo. Bush Sr. once said that he didn’t believe atheists had any place in government and went on to say that he believed they shouldn’t even be considered citizens of the US.

It would be interesting to see a source for this claim, but Aspentroll does not provide one. These days, sorting out urban legend from actual fact is becoming increasingly difficult, especially thanks to the internet. It was reported that George Herbert Walker Bush once said: “No, I don’t know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God,” while still Vice President. Ostensibly, this was uttered at Chicago’s on or about August 27, 1987, at some kind of press conference.

But no video or audio recordings exist which corroborate the quote, nor have other witnesses confirmed it to be a legitimate quotation. Indeed, the only known source for the quote is an atheist activist, one Robert I. Sherman. The Reader will, I trust, forgive me if I find no reason to assume that Mr. Sherman is being wholly, or even partially, truthful in his attribution of the above quote to the then-Vice President.

That very statement is exactly what atheists are angry about.

It would seem, then, that most atheists are angry about a highly dubious statement. Given Aspentroll’s previously stated dismissal of religious people as delusional, I have to wonder how inflamed anger over a potentially imaginary quotation can be equated to reason and rationality?

Or perhaps it is the case that atheists are simply angry people in general, and who prefer to use things like this false quotation as a kind of focal point for their frustration, until a different focal point can be found. If it’s not a 21-year old quotation, it’s Sunday schools (which seem to make Richard Dawkins fairly angry). If it’s not Sunday schools, it’s Sarah Palin (we’ll come to her in a minute or two). If it’s not Sarah Palin, it’s the Church or the Pope, or…something. It’s always something, and (to me, at least, atheists seem to always be angry.

Atheists are constantly being blamed for the actions of Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin.

Well, Pol Pot and Joseph Stalin, yes: both men are excellent examples of what can be expected to transpire when atheism becomes an explicit policy of the state, as well as examples of what happens when strongman leaders apply a “morality” derived from the mere “is”-es of atheistic philosophy to a human population. Vox Day — in his book The Irrational Atheist — goes into great detail on this subject, and his conclusions paint a very bloody picture of atheism’s “Red Hand.”

At any rate, because Stalin and Pol Pot are such excellent examples of the murderous nature of state-endorsed atheism, Aspentroll will ignore them from here on in, and focus on the Godwin-bait instead.

Hitler was historically a Catholic in good standing with the Pope of the day.

Now, one is used to the occasional bit of historical fallacy when one debates atheists, but this particular example takes the cake, given that it manages to encapsulate two distinct historical errors in one convenient sentence.

The issue of Adolf Hitler’s religious beliefs is a complex one, and one that has been explored to great length. But let’s look at the raw facts of history. Hitler was raised by a Catholic mother and a nominally Catholic, “freethinker” father (Adolf Hitler: His Family, Childhood and Youth, Bradley F. Smith, Stanford/California, 1967 pp. 27 & 42). Hitler himself began to reject Catholicism and the Church in his youth. As an adult, he never attended Mass, nor did he participate in any of the Sacraments. (Hitlers Gott. Vorsehungsglaube und Sendungsbewußtsein des deutschen Diktators, Michael Rissmann, Zürich München: Pendo, 2001, p. 94-96)

As attending Mass on Sundays is generally considered a minimum requirement for being a Catholic, let alone one in “good standing,” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2041-2043), it can safely be said (I think) that Hitler was about as Catholic as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem at the time.

Which brings us to the second historical inaccuracy, because the Pope of the day — Pope Pius XII — was no friend of Hitler, or of Naziism. Indeed, Pius XII was often openly critical of the Nazi regime, and of the many evils perpetrated by them. In one encyclical that he drafted for his predecessor (Mit brennender Sorge), he denounced anti-Semitism as un-Christian. In that same writing, Hitler was denounced as insane and arrogant (A Concise History of the Catholic Church, Bokenkotter, (2004), pp. 389–92) — this document, then, led to several rather brutal repressions being launched by the Nazi regime against Catholic priests, monks, and congregations. (A History of Christianity (1995), Chadwick, pp. 254–255)

It is true that during the formal duration of the Second World War, the Church — under Pius XII’s guidance — adopted a policy of strict neutrality. That didn’t prevent more than 2500 Catholic priests from being imprisoned at Dachau, nor did it stop Pius XII from turning the Vatican into a sort of aid centre, missing persons agency, and coordination centre for the evacuation of thousands of Jews — many of them children — from German territory during the course of the war. Indeed, at one point, nearly 500 Jews were hidden in the Vatican proper.

So let’s review: not only was Hitler a nominal Catholic at best (it is more likely that even by the time of his ascent to power, neither he nor any Catholic official would have considered him a part of the Church), but his relationship with the Pope of the day was anything but friendly. And, in fact, the Pope of the day, despite guiding the Church to adopt a neutral stance as far as the war was concerned, worked against Hitler’s machinations and policies to a great extent. The concept of “Hitler’s Pope” is a myth.

Indeed, if Hitler had any Religion, it was Positive Christianity, a rather esoteric concoction that attempted to re-cast Christ as an Aryan champion and active opponent of Judaism — it is thus a historically indefensible parody of the Christian faith, and nothing more or less than an utter heresy. Other aspects of Naziism flirted with the occult, or with forms of paganism. And it must be noted, vis a vis my comment above about the Grand Mufti, that various Islamic officials also worked closely with Hitler, the Grand Mufti even going so far as to send troops to assist Hitler in his campaign against the Jews.

It may interest you to know that there are many more atheists and agnostics and other forms of unbelievers alive and well in the US than you have imagined. Some are in the closet because of statements like that of Bush Sr. They all pay their taxes, give to charities, hardly ever trip old ladies with canes and would really like to be recognized as first class citizens just as the theists.

I don’t deny the existence of moral, charitable atheists; good for them. And yet it remains the case that atheists — or, more broadly, secular folk — are about 3.8 times more likely to be incarcerated for crimes. It remains the case that while crime in America tends to be higher in “red” (read: Republican, stereotypically more Christian) states, the hotbeds of crime in those states tend to be “blue” (read: Democratic, stereotypically more secular) counties (see The Irrational Atheist for more and better detail on these figures).

But remember: nobody can take credit for simply abiding by the law. The law is the minimum standard — as Chris Rock might say, “you’re supposed to pay your taxes, motherfrakker! What do you want, a cookie?” And he might also say, “you’re supposed to not trip old ladies, motherfrakker!” Personally, I think Aspentroll is overstating when he bemoans the fact that atheists do not enjoy recognition as “first class citizens”; I know more than a few atheists personally who are models of their communities, and good people besides. But then, it’s not hard to be a model citizen; one need only obey the law, participate a bit in community events, and treat other community members with respect.

If it really is the case that atheists do not enjoy recognition as citizens in good standing in their communities, it is probably the case that many atheists fail on one or more of these metrics. This conclusion seems, at least, somewhat more probable than the alternative conclusion, that the lower standing of atheists is due solely to a massive theistic conspiracy.

Unless, perhaps, one is a paranoiac. But one cannot be a paranoiac and claim the “high ground” of reason, which atheists often do.

The facts on the ground seem persuasive: religious inclination promotes charitable actions, religious conservatives are more likely to donate to charities and to work in charitable organizations than are secular folk and/or progressives, and religious people are less likely to cheat on their spouses. That’s all stuff I’ve commented on in the past, and then just the stuff I found after a two-minute search. I’m sure, were I to comprehensively examine the archives, that I’d find many more such examples…but these will suffice to demonstrate the point being made: it’s great that some (many?) atheists are good folks and decent citizens…but so what? They’re still the exceptions, rather than the rule.

The biggest problem is that fundamentalists are taught in their churches to discount anyone who believes differently than they do.

This is often the case, yes, and I can only assure both Aspentroll, directly, and the good Reader, more generally, that I am just as much on the receiving end of evangelical exclusivity as any atheist. Being Catholic, the things that I say, and the things that I believe, are very often completely (or near-completely) discounted by the likes of fundamentalists.

But then, it should be noted that atheists are not guilty of doing the same thing. Aspentroll himself, in the writing which I responded too previously, specifically attempted to play the “atheism is reason/religion is delusion” card; is this not a form of automatically discounting “anyone who believes differently” than Aspentroll himself does? And can’t people — young and old alike — be taught to be exclusive in just this way?

Methinks the answer is a resounding “yes!”

This may be because Religion in the US is a big business and will do their utmost to hang on to their positions in church and government. Pat Robertson, Huccabee, Palin come to mind.

Actually, most fundamentalists do it for a far simpler reason that that they are all participants in a massive conspiracy to discount, and possibly disenfranchise, the godless. 2 Corinthians 2:14-18 reads thusly: “Do not be mismated with unbelievers. For what partnership have righteousness and iniquity? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Be’lial? Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, ‘I will live in them and move among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore come out from them, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch nothing unclean; then I will welcome you, and I will be a father to you, and you shall be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.’”

So in “discounting” non-Christians, evangelicals are simply living out their interpretation of this teaching from St. Paul. Of course, their interpretation is incorrect in and of itself…but that’s not the point. The question that Aspentroll raised was one of motive, and this Biblical excerpt is at the heart of the motive of fundamentalists if they make any attempt to discount atheists or other non-Christians.

Now, I promised that we’d come to discuss Sarah Palin a bit more.

I just saw the videos of Sarah Palin being prayed over by the black Priest from Kenya who was attempting to protect her from being taken over by “witches”.

Please, if this is “the common sense” that comes from organized religion, then we have stepped back a century or two, wouldn’t you think?

We all have the right to worry if this twit makes it into government.

I fail to see the cause for worry. Yes, it’s damned odd that some priest from Kenya saw fit to pray that she be protected from witches (more on that in a moment), but why does that make her a twit? And why does it impact on her ability to govern, or to fill the office of Vice President of the United States? And why should we worry about it? It’s just the actions of one priest…he can hardly be said to be representative of Christianity as a global religion, nor of Sarah Palin’s faith, nor of her competence (or lack thereof) to govern.

As to the odd prayer for Palin’s preservation from witches, it should be observed that Christianity often absorbs regional customs, and what we’re seeing here is the result of a conflation of Christian religious tradition with some local Kenyan traditions, methinks. A lot of African tribal cultures still have strong beliefs about possession and witchcraft, as did the ancient Hebrews. That’s not a result of their Christian faith, for the most part; it’s a remnant of their pre-Christian cultural traditions, which has been partially grafted onto their Christian worship practices.

No, it’s not the most sensible thing in the world, good Reader…but give it a few centuries, and it also won’t be an issue any longer, methinks.

In all honesty, there are some Christians that make me cringe by what they do, or for the sometimes esoteric beliefs that they hold. Christians are capable of being “less than rational,” as surely as are all human beings. But methinks that Aspentroll is doing something again which I called him on once before: he would hardly be the first atheist to look at, say, oddities particular to one Christian denomination in an isolated region, and declare that all religions are weird and sub-rational as a result. That might come as news to the many educated, wise, rational, reasonable Christians in the world, but not everyone can be counted on to let facts get in the way of good rhetoric, especially if it sells books with provocative titles. And yet, a more reasonable, rational person would notice that there are many critical differences between, say, Christianity with local tribal influences and formal Catholicism.

And at the end of the day, for as weird as some Christians can be, atheists and other secular folk are still more likely to pursue pseudo-science and the paranormal. Indeed, if one wants to tie this back to the presidential race currently underway, one could reflect that while “36% of those belonging to the United Church of Christ, Sen. [Barack Hussein Obama]’s former denomination, expressed strong beliefs in the paranormal, only 14% of those belonging to the Assemblies of God, Sarah Palin’s former denomination, did. In fact, the more traditional and evangelical the respondent, the less likely he was to believe in, for instance, the possibility of communicating with people who are dead.”

I respectfully submit to Aspentroll that, if it is honestly his desire that the candidate most closely associated with “common sense” be elected, his vote should not go to the Obama end of the ticket come November.

I know you won’t post this, because it will not be in your best interest.

Sorry to disappoint, Aspentroll.

was noted for having published a number of papers, starting (if memory serves) in about the 1950s, advancing an atheistic philosophy based on his studies in biology. Then, in the early years of this century, he changed his mind, and ‘converted’ to deism. In November of 2007, he released a book entitled There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, detailing the process of his conversion and the reasoning behind it.

[image:7487:c:s=1:l=x]

And now, Professor Flew has taken Richard Dawkins to task with a scathing review of The God Delusion.

The God Delusion by the atheist writer Richard Dawkins, is remarkable in the first place for having achieved some sort of record by selling over a million copies. But what is much more remarkable than that economic achievement is that the contents – or rather lack of contents – of this book show Dawkins himself to have become what he and his fellow secularists typically believe to be an impossibility: namely, a secularist bigot. (Helpfully, my copy of The Oxford Dictionary defines a bigot as ‘an obstinate or intolerant adherent of a point of view’).

The fault of Dawkins as an academic (which he still was during the period in which he composed this book although he has since announced his intention to retire) was his scandalous and apparently deliberate refusal to present the doctrine which he appears to think he has refuted in its strongest form.

…an academic attacking some ideological position which s/he believes to be mistaken must of course attack that position in its strongest form. This Dawkins does not do in the case of Einstein and his failure is the crucial index of his insincerity of academic purpose and therefore warrants me in charging him with having become, what he has probably believed to be an impossibility, a secularist bigot.

…

On page 82 of The God Delusion is a remarkable note. It reads ‘We might be seeing something similar today in the over-publicised tergiversation of the philosopher Antony Flew, who announced in his old age that he had been converted to belief in some sort of deity (triggering a frenzy of eager repetition all around the internet).’

What is important about this passage is not what Dawkins is saying about Flew but what he is showing here about Dawkins. For if he had had any interest in the truth of the matter of which he was making so much he would surely have brought himself to write me a letter of enquiry. (When I received a torrent of enquiries after an account of my conversion to Deism had been published in the quarterly of the Royal Institute of Philosophy I managed — I believe — eventually to reply to every letter.)

This whole business makes all too clear that Dawkins is not interested in the truth as such but is primarily concerned to discredit an ideological opponent by any available means.

Not that it should come as any surprise that someone like Dawkins would end up being little more than a dyed-in-the-wool bigot; after a man goes his disciples, of course, and the average Dawkins disciple is not what one might term a paragon of compassion and understanding.

And Flew has it exactly right. Vox Day, in his book The Irrational Atheist, noted as much, pointing out that much of Dawkins’ bestseller is devoted to denigrating opponents more than to actually presenting a coherent philosophy supported by evidence (indeed, Day noted that the evidence itself was rather sorely lacking, in addition to the incoherency of the philosophy being presented). The God Delusion is not a work of science (or philosophy, for that matter) as much as it is a series of one-sided (and two-sided) vendettas finding their expression in print.

[image:6999:i:s=0:l=http://www.gamespot.com/users/Theokhoth/]

It arrived in the mail while I was away.

[image:7061:c:s=1:l=x]

I’m looking forward to reading this, let me tell you! There’s nothing quite so enjoyable as engaging atheists on their own ground, and it looks like Vox Day has done exactly that.

Interested readers can buy the book here.

The guy just speaks to me:

I was quite naturally touched by their plight and outraged at the callous decision of that nameless advertiser to deny the important and timely message of God’s continued non-existence to the listeners of America. (Complete with updates on the status of Generalissimo Francisco Franco on the hour, no doubt.) Choking back my tears, I determined that I would stand in the gap in this dire time of need, for did I not have a book forthcoming that would be of no little interest to the very audience which made bestsellers out of the presumably uninspired scribblings of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and yea, even Christopher Hitchens?

So, a week ago, I sent MN Atheists the following email: “I am interested in becoming an advertiser of your new radio show on Air America. Please let me know about your various sponsorship and advertising options.”

They responded with an email that neglected to provide the requested information, but instead mentioned that my website appeared to be a very conservative and religious one, and that it hadn’t occurred to them to “advertise our opposition”. I replied: “It’s a libertarian site, not conservative one, but I am a Christian, yes…. I’m simply interested in knowing your standard rates for the various advertising packages because I expect many atheists will be interested in reading my forthcoming book, The Irrational Atheist, just as many Christians, including myself, have read the various books by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and company.”

I still didn’t receive any information on their advertising rates, in fact, I didn’t receive anything for three more days, until after a third email to them, MN Atheists finally informed me that while atheists and Christians might read each other’s books, they had no intention of permitting me to advertise The Irrational Atheist on their show.

I guess being a freethinker doesn’t really mean thinking freely after all. Not that incidences of atheist bigotry surprise me anymore…nor does it particularly surprise that some of the best herd thinking is from the likes of freethought enthusiasts. Personally, I think anecdotes like this speak volumes about just how terrified most atheists are of Christians who’ve maintained — or found new justification for — their ardent faith after having read every diatribe and screed produced in defence of New atheism.

And the comments are even better. Don’t miss Day calling the bluff of drive-by atheist commentator “Old Ned”.

I am definitely ordering The Irrational Atheist.

There, I hope that does it…if not, I wonder just what I have to do to bait former commentators Robert or Nicholas into sending a note my way.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I promised one of my envious dwarf friends that I’d show him my newly enchanted Ornate Greaves of Power with the 6-percent speed bonus…. you know, it’s probably going to kill Richard Dawkins to learn that he didn’t get his head handed to him by a respected public intellectual or a world-famous scientist, but a hardcore gamer who typed in the text in between poring over DVOA and killing Hordies in Alterac.

I don’t play World of Warcraft, nor do I care to. But I do admire chutzpah.

Dr. Helen links to, and reviews in brief, a very interesting-sounding book:

I spent part of the day reading Vox Day’s new book, The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens. You might know Vox Day from his blog and interesting take on feminist issues — he always has something provocative to add to that particular conversation and his book proves to be just as stimulating in regards to religion and faith. The Irrational Atheistis described as follows (from the inside cover):

The Irrational Atheist is not a theological work nor is it a conventional religious defense of faith. It contains no arguments for the existence of God and the supernatural, nor is it concerned with evolution, creationism, the age of Earth, or intelligent design. This book contains no arguments from Scripture. In attacking the arguments, assertions, and conclusions of the New Atheists, Vox Day’s only weapons are the secular tools of reason, logic and historically documented, independently verifiable fact. The Irrational Atheist is not a book about God, but about those who seek to replace Him….

Day takes on the likes of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens and seeks to demonstrate that they and other “New Atheists” are no champions of reason.

Sounds like I might just have to pick this book up. In particular, I’m left tantalized by the small sample Dr. Helen provides of Vox Day’s analysis:

For example, Day discusses one argument made by Harris where Harris questions the correlation between Christian conservatism and social health:

If there was a strong correlation between Christian conservatism and social health, we might expect to see some sign of it in red-state America. We don’t. Of the 25 cities with the lowest rates of violent crime, 62 percent are in “blue” [Democrat] states and 38% are in “red” [Republican] states. Of the twenty-five most dangerous cities, 76 percent are in red states, and 24 percent are in blue states. In fact, three of the five most dangerous cities in the US are in the pious state of Texas.

Interestingly, though, Day found that “red-state” crime is primarily committed by “blue counties” within those states and has a nice chart to show the stats on this. It seems that Harris was looking at states such as Texas that had more crime and called the states “red” but conveniently omitted the part where the counties where the crimes were committed tended to be “blue.”

Other myth busters include the notion that religion causes the majority of war as some atheists profess, Day provides evidence to the contrary–he found that more than 93% of all the wars in human history had no relation to Religion. In the twentieth century, in fact, he states that atheistic regimes killed three times more people in peacetime than those killed in all the wars and individual crimes combined.

I admit I’ve never been particularly troubled by the atheistic assertion that the falsity of religion can be demonstrated in part by the way that more secular nations seem to have lower crime rates than more religious nations do. As has been articulated many times (most recently, and eloquently, by Mark Shea), the validity of the teachings of the Church are in no way dependent on the actions of members of the Church. But neither have I had the time to really delve into the finer points of the statement, and it’s nice to see that Day has taken the time.

In the end, the numbers don’t really surprise all that much, do they? It turns out that the religious are, in fact, less to blame.

And in a more general sense, the notion that the crime rate is lower in more ardently secular nations does necessarily imply that the people of those nations are more moral than in nations where religion still has some value, and that is the more important distinction. That is to say: the murder rates in Sweden and Norway might be lower than in the U.S. or the Phillipenes, but where do the abortion rates sit? The rates of property crime might also be lower, but what about the rates of marital infidelity and/or pre-marital sex and serial monogamy?

In the end, legality is a less important metric than morality, because the laws of most free nations are designed (in theory) to enforce a minimum standard…but of course, there is more to being a moral person than just following the laws of the land to the letter, because laws are a human construct and subject to change at the will of humanity. Morality is external to human willfulness and weakness. How, I wonder, do all these secular nations measure up by that standard?