Geoff Arnold's Blog

I just noticed an atheist blog-meme over at The Barefoot Bum. I’m shocked, shocked that nobody has tagged me with it, but never mind: I figure that I can always tag myself. So here goes.
Q1. How would you define “atheism”?
Atheism is the opposite of theism: the belief in god. This may seem to be a cop-out, but in fact it’s inevitable. People have used the word “god” to label many different (and incompatible) concepts; and what they mean by “believe in” usually depends on the type of god involved. At its simplest, atheism is just a psychological state in which one has no kind of “belief in” anything that one would label “god”. ((Most theists (and a few atheists) only recognize the use of “god” to refer to their own, preferred deity. This is why the Romans called the early Christians “atheists”, because they denied the divinity of the Roman pantheon. It has been said (by whom I’m not sure) that in a world of N gods, we are all atheists with respect to N-1 of them; atheists simply choose not to make an exception for the Nth.))
Q2. Was your upbringing religious? If so, what tradition?
My mother converted from the Church of England to Roman Catholicism when I was about 6, and I attended various RC churches until I was about 13. I was an altar boy (but never abused), and I sang in the choir. I loved the Latin of the Mass, and the antiphonal church music of the time. ((I can still sing through Asperges me and the Credo in my head, though my former alto voice is long gone.)) I read the Bible from cover to cover, which was an eye-opener.
In spite of all this activity, I never had any kind of strong religious feelings, and by about the age of 12 I realized that I was an atheist. It was pretty clear to me that conventional concepts of god were simply contradictory or incoherent, and that there were perfectly good natural explanations for everything that religious people ascribed to the supernatural. I hung around the church for a bit longer, just for the chance to sing in the choir, and then I quit. ((My mother stayed with the church until 1968, when Humanae Vitae was published.))
Q3. How would you describe “Intelligent Design”, using only one word?
Devious.
Q4. What scientific endeavor really excites you?
Neuroscience.
Q5. If you could change one thing about the “atheist community”, what would it be and why?
Make it larger! Otherwise, nothing. It’s a stretch to refer to it as a “community”, anyway; the only thing that really brings them together is dealing with the prejudice of theists.
Q6. If your child came up to you and said “I’m joining the clergy”, what would be your first response
Well, he did! (And he’s well on his way to achieving his objective.) I can’t remember what my first response was, but I think that I hoped for his happiness at the same time that I worried about how he’d cope with the turmoil in his denomination (the Episcopalians).
Q7. What’s your favorite theistic argument, and how do you usually refute it?
No, not design, or first cause, or evil, or anything like like. My favourite is the “argument from personal experience”, which I enjoy because it lets me go after the dualism which is, I think, at the root of most of this nonsense. Side-trips can include the synthesis of religious experience using drugs, the gradual re-interpretation of demonic possession as mental illness, mental causation, and Descartes‘ infamous pineal gland.
Q8. What’s your most “controversial” (as far as general attitudes amongst other atheists goes) viewpoint?
I’m vehemently opposed to religious schools of any kind. I think I was strongly influenced by the conflict in Northern Ireland, and the way denominational schools were used to inflame sectarian hatred. (See Stephen Law’s “The War for Children’s Minds”.) But there’s probably a personal element in her as well: I remember when I was a student at the Royal Grammar School, High Wycombe, how I had to stand outside the morning assembly with other non-members of the Church of England until they’d finished the hymn and the lesson. (Remember Monty Python’s “The Meaning of Life”?) Then we would all walk in and stand at the back for the secular part of assembly – announcements, awards, that kind of thing.
Q9. Of the “Four Horsemen” (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris) who is your favourite, and why?
Dennett, but only because I count him a friend. Three of the four are wonderful, each in his way: Dennett’s robustly naturalistic philosophy, Hitchen’s exquisite prose and biting wit, and Dawkins for one of the greatest books of science ever written: “The Ancestor’s Tale”. Harris is OK, but I wish he wouldn’t get all dewy-eyed about Buddhism.
Q10. If you could convince just one theistic person to abandon their beliefs, who would it be?
Tony Blair. No, that’s too easy. The Pope – just for the theatrical possibilities.
Hmmm. What happened to the last three questions?
Beats me. Although one participant suggests that the name was chosen for Friday 13th, the day this got started. That’s consistent with the alternative title of Triskaidekatheism.
Now name three other atheist blogs that you’d like to see take up the Atheist Thirteen gauntlet:
No thanks. I think I’ll let them select themselves.

Yesterday evening I completed my trifecta of PZ events by attending the meeting of the Seattle Skeptics (otherwise known as the Society for Sensible Explanations). PZ Myers was the guest speaker, and after we’d socialized and eaten he educated us about the evolution of eyes. Rather than trying to summarize, I’ll point you at the posts by PZ himself and PvM (at Panda’s Thumb). Hopefully PZ will post the slides to his site; I definitely want to get another look at some of the diagrams, and to check out the links he mentioned.
The Seattle Skeptics seem like a nice bunch; I think I’ll get involved.

During the Q&A at Pacific Science Center on Monday, someone asked PZ to recommend a good children’s book on atheism. At the time, the best that PZ could suggest was that someone needed to write such a book; there was then a brief discussion of books on evolutionary science for kids. I didn’t have anything to offer: I dimly remembered a book by the philosopher Michael Martin called “The Big Domino In The Sky”, but that was about it. The subject came up again last night (E.coli for kids?), and so I decided to do a little digging.
Prometheus Books has published a number of children’s books on humanism, origins, evolution, and skeptical thinking. They include:

• “Humanism, What’s That?: A Book for Curious Kids” by Helen Bennett
• “The Tree Of Life: The Wonders Of Evolution” by Ellen Jackson
• “Born With a Bang: The Universe Tells Our Cosmic Story” and “From Lava to Life: The Universe Tells Our Earth’s Story” by Jennifer Morgan
• “Maybe Yes, Maybe No: A Guide for Young Skeptics” and “Just Pretend: A Freethought Book for Children” by Dan Barker

I have no idea how good these are, in part because such books often attract contrarian reviews at Amazon. It does appear, however, that there’s an opportunity for someone to come up with a children’s (or “young adult”) book on atheism: what it is, what it isn’t, an account of the natural origins of supernatural beliefs, how to respond to some of the common arguments against atheism, and a resource guide. Any volunteers? And any other suggestions and recommendations? (For or against!)