Athée Canadien
Center for Inquiry
Announcing CFI Edmonton
Nov 10th
Centre for Inquiry Canada has made its way to Edmonton! We had our first business meeting the other day and it went very smoothly; I assigned some executive roles, we did a ton of brainstorming, and we already have a loose schedule for some upcoming events. 
I suppose the Ben Radford event I wrote about earlier was the first ‘official’ CFI Edmonton event, but we really had very little to do with the event; the speaker was from CFI Calgary, the room was booked by the University of Alberta Atheists and Agnostics, and the Greater Edmonton Skeptics Society helped out with a ton of the logistics. The only CFI Edmonton person involved with the event was myself, but I was also representing the other organizations…
Despite CFI Edmonton’s minimal involvement, I think our first official event sets a good tone for CFI Edmonton; cooperation between different groups working towards a common goal. It’s certainly not a bad way to start off an organization, and I hope to maintain that kind of productive and mutually beneficial cooperation as we grow CFI Edmonton.
The beginning of CFI Edmonton was originally mired in a little bit of controversy. Other atheists/skeptics had already tried to get a CFI Edmonton started before yours truly had entered the scene. Unfortunately, CFI Canada at that time was spread a little thin starting up CFI Calgary, and poor communication led to frustration here in Edmonton. However, now that CFI Calgary is more established, a larger portion of CFI Canada’s resources can be dedicated to helping start up CFI Edmonton. I’ve been working to smooth relations here in Edmonton and it is going quite well. It’s not really anyone’s fault, but it should be acknowledged and discussed so the same type of mistake can be prevented from happening again. Many of the folks who were interested in setting up CFI Edmonton originally (but ended up a little frustrated) attended the first business meeting and made meaningful contributions. I’ve made it clear that all are welcome to get involved and help out; no one is shut out from getting involved.
I’ve been spearheading the campaign to get a CFI here in Edmonton since August, and it’s beginning to bear fruit. But there’s still a lot of work to do. Our membership is still very small, not all the executive roles have been handed out, and no events are concrete yet. But Rome wasn’t built in a day now, was it?
Hopefully in the next little while we’ll finalize some events and get a regular event series figured out. Either way it’s very exciting to be setting up a CFI here. I sure hope CFI Edmonton continues to grow and prosper, and I’ll do my best to make sure that happens.
CFI Skeptics welcome Creationist Dr. Sarfati
Oct 28th
This past week, British Columbia was host to creationist lecturer Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, a PhD in chemistry who gave a series of lectures entitled “Evolution: The Greatest Hoax on Earth.” The title, while pithy enough on its own, is based on the title of the international bestselling book The Greatest Show on Earth by British biologist, professor and novelist Richard Dawkins.
Dr. Sarfati, founder of Creation Ministries International, asserts that evolution is a hoax based on his literal interpretation of the story of Genesis – in which God created the universe in 7 days about 10,000 years ago. One must admire the courage and temerity of a man who looks at pre-human fossils dated orders of magnitude older than that; rock formations dated billions of years old; and abundant cosmological evidence putting the age of the universe even older than the rocks; and says “nope, ten thousand – book says so.” Maybe ‘admire’ isn’t the right word…
What did we do?
Upon hearing that we would be paid a visit by such a luminary figure, British Columbia skeptics decided that if creationist propaganda was going to be spread around our fair province then audience members deserved to hear what the scientific evidence had to say. After all, forewarned is forearmed. Centre for Inquiry (CFI) Vancouver, in partnership with our colleagues at CFI Okanagan, the University of British Columbia (UBC) biology department, UBC Okanagan (UBCO), the UBC Freethinkers and the UBCO Skeptics contacted the venues where Sarfati was scheduled to speak – UBC’s Vancouver campus, The Pacific Academy in Surrey, and UBC’s Okanagan campus – and requested permission to set up an information table in the lobby.
The Pacific Academy, a privately owned venue attached to a Pentacostal Christian school (K-12) in Surrey, declined our request to set up a table. While we were understandably disappointed – especially given CFI’s past willingness to allow creationists to push their propaganda (usually in the form of “if there’s no God, how did all this stuff get here? Therefore, God.”) at our events – we recognized that private businesses have every right to hold whatever events they like. The Surrey event was attended by around 800 people of all ages.
We were able to prevail upon UBC to allow the presence of science within the morass of apologetics by reminding them of their obligation to present information that is consistent with the policies of the university. While creationism might be entertaining, evolution is a fact. We were lucky to be able to borrow on the heft and credibility of our colleagues within the UBC biology department.
The Vancouver lecture was not quite as well-attended, perhaps due to the fact that people in a university environment know a bit more about science than the general public. Many of the students we encountered there attended out of sheer curiosity – having heard about the evolution vs. creation “controversy” (only controversial to those within the creationist camp). They thanked us for being there to present the evidence, rather than… well, we’ll get to that later.
The UBC Okanagan lecture was again not quite as popular as the one held by the Pentecostal Church in Surrey. Our volunteers were present to provide some information to those who might not have a background in biology. Feeling a bit cheeky, some of us wore t-shirts that said “Creationism: a Philosophy of Ignorance”, referring to the argument from ignorance that Creationism is based on (“I don’t know how this works, therefore it must be God’s doing”). Our esteemed presenter wasn’t particularly pleased about that, but we’ll get to that in a bit.
Overall, our presence was welcomed by audience members. We were careful not to force information on people, preferring instead to wait for curious parties to come to us. We were not there to sell anything or to force an agenda, merely to make information available and give people a chance to pre-empt some of the more egregious lies inherent to creationism.
What happened at the lecture?
While the bar for creationist lecturers isn’t set particularly high, either in terms of evidence or persuasive arguments, Dr. Sarfati did his utmost not to clear it. Instead of presenting evidence for the truth of creation (which would be impressive, because there isn’t any), he instead presented a series of shallow, recycled and easily- (and oft-) refuted arguments. Some of the highlights:
- The second law of thermodynamics says that organization can’t increase in a closed system, therefore beneficial mutations cannot happen and evolution cannot occur. Never mind that the Earth is not a closed system, gets regular energy from the sun, and beneficial mutations have been observed to occur (a PhD in Chemistry really should know this)…
- Science comes from Christianity (therefore… God?). Never mind that the Christian church repeatedly blocked scientific progress that was contrary to dogma, that science has explained many things that were supposedly divine “mysteries”, and that during the Dark Ages – when the church was at its height of power – it was the Muslim world that made the greatest contributions to science…
- Noah’s flood explains everything, from the Grand Canyon to the divergence of species. Never mind the fact that contemporary floods don’t seem to have the magical properties of Noah’s flood, that building a ship capable of holding 2 of every animal in the world would require a level of technology we don’t even have today, and that there is no evidence anywhere of a flood that covered the entire world and then carefully planted specific types of animals only in certain places…
- Fish float when they die, therefore they can’t fossilize, therefore fish fossils are evidence of being buried by mud slides from Noah’s flood. Never mind the fact that you do not need Noah’s flood to create mud slides that bury fish. It happens all the time. Never mind the fact that fish sink after their air bladders lose integrity, or that fish without bladders sink right away, or that fossil records are not the only – or even the strongest – evidence we have for evolution…
- If you put a frog in a blender and turn it on, you’ll never see a live frog be reassembled. I’m not even sure if this one is worth taking on, and someone should probably call the SPCA.
After the lecture there was a Q&A session. Dr. Safarti wasn’t too pleased to see our volunteers in the first place (someone put a copy of Biology for Dummies on the podium – perhaps not polite, but certainly funny), and mentioned our insouciant t-shirts a few times in Kelowna. He became even more hostile when we pointed out some of the more egregious fallacies in his argument, interrupting the questioners, accusing us of trying to convert people to atheism (a big scary deal to Dr. Safarti), and assuring us that the answers were in one of his books, but he couldn’t answer it right now. The Vancouver event was attended predominantly by students and evolutionists, who did not respond well to these evasive tactics and cheered on those who took the creationist presenter to task for them.
Our reception was somewhat frostier in Kelowna, where the crowd was not quite as pro-science as in Vancouver. Our questions, rather than being met with tacit approval, were the cause of some consternation to the audience. One attendee, a professor of philosophy, attempted to demonstrate some of the logical problems with Sarfati’s arguments – an audience member threatened to put the professor in a head lock. Perhaps it goes without saying that we didn’t win any popularity contests there. Hopefully we got mentioned in a few church sermons the following Sunday.
Needless to say, Dr. Sarfati was not pleased to have people present who are aware of history, science, and basic logic. His hostility was not saved for skeptics either: he made many disparaging comments about atheists, Muslims, and made disparaging remarks about other Christians who believed in evolution. Perhaps being a jerk and a buffoon isn’t relevant to the fact that his presentation was frankly a big steamy pile of BS, but it certainly didn’t help his cause.
What did we learn?
The British Columbia branches of CFI are working on our “skeptivist” approach – bringing the tools of skepticism out into the open and engaging the public. We were lucky to have partners at UBC, as well as the support of the national branch of CFI. We were once again received positively by most of the audience at the event we attended – a reception we can at least partially attribute to being polite and non-pushy (being a good-looking group of ladies and gents probably didn’t hurt either).
People are understandably curious when someone tells them “the thing you’ve been taught is a hoax”. I’m sure that many of the attendees were either confirmed creationists for whom science is blasphemy, and more than a few were science-literate skeptics present at the lecture for a chuckle. Our mission was not and has not been, to convert the whole audience to one way of thinking; it was to present the actual evidence and allow people to make their own decisions. We are confident that after hearing “both sides” of the creation/evolution issue, reasonable people will choose the side with the evidence on its side over the one that relies on distortions and outright falsehoods to make its point.
Our information tables were visited predominantly by the people we were hoping to attract – science-weak university students who were there out of curiosity. They thanked us for being there, knowing that evolution is embraced by the scientific community but not being too sure about why. While skeptics and atheists are often accused of “preaching to the converted”, we were glad to have an opportunity to “preach” to those whose understanding of biology is less than full.
Dr. Sarfati is perhaps not the greatest challenge facing us in the creationist camp. While folks like Ken Ham at least have some kind of charisma, Dr. Sarfati has pictures of blended frogs and slander against non-believers. However, it is important to counter pseudoscience and fraud whenever it appears, particularly when it’s on our university campuses, no matter how unimpressive the speaker may be. We are happy to have been a part of this, and optimistic that we may have given people some things to think about.
Atheist/Skeptic Groups Work Together in Alberta!
Oct 23rd
Since this blog seems to be in a constant state of raging shitstorm lately, I’m going to write about a successful collaboration between a bunch of freethinker groups in Alberta. Hooray for teamwork and co-operation!
Paranormal investigator extraordinaire and managing editor of Skeptical Inquirer magazine Ben Radford was brought to both Calgary and Edmonton to give presentations on paranormal investigation. It was only possible through the successful efforts of 3 different atheist/skeptical groups in Alberta! The Greater Edmonton Skeptics Society, CFI Calgary, and the University of Alberta Atheists and Agnostics all played important roles in making the collaboration successful!
Ben first came to Calgary to give a presentation, then was driven up to Edmonton for another presentation, then will be driven back to Calgary today to give a workshop on paranormal investigation.
Maybe it’s not that amazing, but I think it’s something worth appreciating. There was excellent communication between all three parties, and it was mutually beneficial to everyone involved.
This is an example of great teamwork and friendly co-operation. We do have common goals, and while we may not agree about what is the best way to go about achieving those goals, we can still collaborate every now and then to make awesome things happen.
The Council for Secular Humanism 2010 Conference: Or, why are humanists so old?
Oct 14th
This last weekend I attended The 30th Anniversary Conference of Free Inquiry and the Council for Secular Humanism in Los Angeles, CA. This was my first atheist/humanist/freethinker type of conference, so I was very excited to finally get to meet some of the movers and shakers of the movement.
And in fact, I was actually able to talk to many people on my “must meet” list: including James Randi, D.J. Grothe, PZ Myers, Lawrence Krauss, Paul Kurtz, Jennifer Michael Hecht, and Richard Dawkins (I’ll spare you the obligatory fan girl picture).
Overall, it was a great experience. If anything, I’ve learned to appreciate the fact that these big names in the atheist movement are just regular people — many of which I stood in line with grabbing coffee before a morning session. Though, admittedly, it was a bit odd “getting used” to seeing Dawkins milling around the same room as I.
A few impressions, good and bad, of the whirlwind weekend I had in LA:
- The attendees were definitely on the older side of the age scale. I went with a group of Freethinkers from Saskatoon, and I think we may have brought down the average age of the room by 15 years or more. Not that being older is a bad thing — but often the life of a movement can be found in its younger members. There weren’t many under-40s in attendance.
- The session topics for the conference panels were pretty interesting. For example, on Friday afternoon there was the “Science and Religion: Confrontation or Accommodation?” panel between Chris Mooney and PZ Myers, amongst others. (Part 1 and Part 2) [If you're still hankering for more accomodationalist v. confrontationalist smackdowns, Mooney recorded an additional Point of Inquiry debate between himself and PZ. (read: I'm not a Mooney fan)]
- But the highlight of the weekend had to be the debate between Sam Harris and Robert Wright. Granted, it took twice as long to get into the ballroom to hear the debate, thanks to the amp’d up security (a shame when speaking out causes you to hire bodyguards). The full debate between the two (“Where Should Seculars Stand Today and Tomorrow on Questions of Religion and Belief?”) can be watched here. (read: Wright gets his ass philosophically handed to him by Harris)
- Despite the conference’s title of “Setting the Agenda,” I didn’t notice much agenda being set. The last session on Sunday morning was supposed to be a time for the attendees to ask questions and pose suggestions to the CFI/CSH leadership and panelists about the future of the secular humanism movement. Unfortunately, due to a (really) unseemly outburst by Kurtz and an ousted CFI employee, most of the morning was spent recovering from shouting matches between the audience and the panel. I tried to get Ron Lindsay (President and CEO of CFI) to commit to putting more effort/resources into secular parenting groups in the US and Canada, but his answer was mainly full of defensiveness over what CFI is already doing (read: not much) and evading any commitment beyond what is happening now in a handful of groups.
The LA Times wrote a piece about the conference, and I think Mark Oppenheimer (he who wrote the infamous NYTimes Kurtz article a couple weeks ago) will be issuing an article about the conference in the next few days.
Overall, I was really glad to be a part of such an experience — even if much of the conference was a bit marred by all the interpersonal politics going on behind-the-scenes. Now, more than ever, I recognize the unpredictable role that “human” can play in humanism.
[p.s. Katie and John, Lindsay showed a PowerPoint slide of you two standing in front of CFI Transnational with Justin. You're famous! (or something)]
CFI keeps shooting self in foot
Oct 4th
It’s very easy to blame malicious journalists or ousted founders that carry a grudge, but at some point, public relations becomes something that an organization has to take its own responsibility for. Otherwise you end up with articles like this latest in the New York Times:
According to [CFI founder Paul] Kurtz, there were two areas of conflict. First, he says, [new CFI CEO Ron] Lindsay changed the work culture. Whereas Mr. Kurtz had managed “in the spirit of a think tank,” Mr. Lindsay brought his legal background to bear.
“I am used to the academic life, where we don’t impose rules on employees,” Mr. Kurtz said, sitting in his living room. But Mr. Lindsay, he said, “set up a command system, said these are the rules and laws, and anyone who deviates from that will be investigated.”
Employees were interrogated for minor infractions, Mr. Kurtz said, and several were let go. “That is like Stalinism or the Inquisition,” Mr. Kurtz said.
By phone and by e-mail, Mr. Lindsay said that the “investigations” were due-process inquiries into complaints, and that he had not fired anyone for questioning his authority. He said that four employees were laid off for economic reasons, one resigned, and one freelance employee did not have his contract renewed. Only the center’s spokesman, Nathan Bupp, who left last week, may have been fired; Mr. Lindsay, in an e-mail, would only say, “This was not a layoff.”
More generally, he said that Mr. Kurtz, after 30 years of leadership, simply found it too difficult to cede responsibility; in particular, Mr. Lindsay mentioned fund-raising, saying that Mr. Kurtz was reluctant to introduce him to donors he had known for years. [emphasis added]
Yes, Kurtz won’t shut up, and that’s damaging the organization, but Lindsay holds as much responsibility for feeding these sharks with lines that fit the narrative of a growing “rift.”
While there are many unrelated reasons that I have chosen to severely limit my involvement with the Centre for Inquiry Vancouver (which I will not get into here), this “rift” reflects horribly across all CFI, even though CFI Canada is a separate legal entity (although Lindsay does sit on the board of CFI Canada and CFI Transnational still provides the majority of the funding to CFI Canada).
While CFI Canada arrogantly bills itself as “Canada’s premiere venue for humanists, skeptics and freethinkers,” it is worth remembering that there are numerous other freethought organizations that are uniquely Canadian and others that are significantly older than CFI Canada.
It’s great to get into the New York Times, but not all news is good news.
Spying on Atheists for Xtians
Sep 6th
This whole thing is far too funny not to share.
When I was doing the Canadian Atheist Bus Campaign with the Freethought Association of Canada I got a lot of death threats. People got my personal cell phone number and would call me at all hours of the day and night to scold me. I would get lectured, threatened and yelled at. But it has taken a rabid atheist or secular humanist to formulate his own personal vendetta against me… striking at my name at every chance possible.
In case you can’t read it:
“Katie Kish is a christian spy and saboteur. Check her profile. Everyone should join her group spying on atheists for xtians so we can see what she’s up to. She is President of the Freethought Association of Canada and was employed by CFI. This is too bizarre to make up.”
and
“Katie Kish is a christian spy and saboteur. Check her profile. Everyone should join her group spying on atheists for xtians so we can see what she and her friends are up to. She is President of the Freethought Association of Canada and was employed by CFI. She is a good spy.”
and
“Google spying on atheists for Xtians and you will see her picture. Maybe now she wants recognition for serving the Lord. Why not ask Katie why she said she was a Christian.”
What is depressing is that if you google it my picture doesn’t actually come up. The Facebook group that Facebook automatically made when I (jokingly) listed it as an interest comes up… and my picture is there.
This whole thing started when Rod and I were both on the board of the FAC. He wanted to send a copy of Victor Stenger’s “God: The Failed Hypothesis” to someone in government who was open about his Christianity (and I think a supporter of Creationism, which is why everyone was so pissed off). I basically told Rod that we shouldn’t send it. I said it would be offensive and a bad PR move on the FAC’s part. I think I also mentioned that it was sort of not on topic, and that we might consider sending science education books to multiple politicians, which would have a much better press headline.
Rod got pissed off and said I was censoring him while trying to protect someone’s faith. He continued to say that I had been in contact with a United Church Minister and was probably starting to get confused (or something) about faith. I feel like I should mentioned that I’ve been in contact with a United Church Minister every single day for the past 13 years of my life – as my step-dad is one. He started to say that I probably shouldn’t be employed by FAC because I wasn’t an atheist and was therefore not looking out for the best interest of the group.
The FAC board decided to have a meeting about it. At the meeting Rod further accused me of censoring him and being to kind to religion. At the time thought I was an atheist, and so said so (I’m obviously not anymore and am very open about it). The board also took an official vote on sending book. I abstained from the vote, so that Rod could no longer blame me for the book not being sent, 3 board members voted not to send the book and Rod voted to send it. Despite my attempt to stay out of it Rod still holds me entirely accountable for that book not being sent. (Yes, we’ve told him many times he can send it on his own, but apparently that’s not good enough).
Now I’ve pretty much tried to steer clear of this guy ever since all of that happened. But he continues to attack my name every chance possible. (And agnostics… saying they are intellectually dishonest and stupid. He said this at a Coping Without Religion meeting, even… a support group for people trying to leave religion… *anger anger anger*) If I comment on someone’s thing on Facebook he is right there to start attacking me. Apparently he googles me to see what I’m up to. He tried to start talking about me at a Living Without Religion group, but luckily people stopped him from further slandering my name.
Just a few nit-pics about this guy:
- I’ve never been employed by CFI. I have been employed by the FAC where one of my main responsibilities was to help CFI in event planning and taking care of the library. But ‘ve never been a CFI employee.
- Even though I am a Christian I don’t see why it matters that I’m involved with CFI and FAC as neither are specifically atheist groups. You can very easily be a liberal Christian who sees the problems with religion, with the issues that atheists face in society and the problems with religion interfering in the public sphere. CFI is becoming increasingly irritating when it comes to religion (ie: saying that religious spaces are not good for humanity!!) but you still don’t need to be an atheist to be involved with the majority of their campaigns.
- Myself and other CFI-Ontario/FAC/Toronto-atheists have amplified the joke that I’m a christian spy simply to make fun of Rod… but the interesting thing is that the more we amplify the joke the more convinced to becomes that I actually *am* a Christian spy.
Seriously. It’s not like this guy is getting on my nerves but it is starting to get a little bit ridiculous. How can he call me a saboteur when I have done far more for the secularist movement in Canada than he will ever do. Despite having to put up with atheists arguing with me about faith and telling me I’m stupid I stick around and continue to volunteer to support the freethought/secularist cause. It’s not like I’ve read a book, found amazing truth in it and now use it against everyone’s argument about everything without actually thinking if the book worthy of so much praise. I’m not referring to the bible here, I’m referring to his seriously weird obsession with Victor Stenger’s book… which has become his own personal bible making him just as closed minded at conservative/extreme Christians.
For Halloween everyone in Toronto should join me in making an army of Rod Tamneys. All that is needed is a silly looking fedor, a pompus looking suit, a copy of Stenger’s book and the following three lines memorized: “agnostics are stupid”, “katie is a christian spy” and “read chapter 2 of this book”.
So… Can I sue him for slander or something yet?
CFI Canada: on mosques
Aug 28th
People shouldn’t get too worked up about CFI:Transnational’s press release (EDIT: link removed by CFI, see below for full text) on their ‘opposition’ to the Ground Zero mosque. The title was misleading because if you actually read the paper, they’re not really in opposition to specific religious structures being built, they just think people shouldn’t bother building religious structures anywhere, which is entirely within their mandate “to foster a society based on science, reason, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values”. CFI has always been a publicity whore and will take positions on anything if they think might get picked up by mainstream media, which I think is a good thing considering their lack of resources and their need to get their message out.
Regardless, please keep in mind that CFI:Canada is completely separate from CFI:Transnational and has no official position on this topic. Executive Director Justin Trottier tells me in an email:
I personally believe that there’s no legitimate or legal way to impede any or all religions from constructing places of worship near ground zero. I’m afraid such a position risks making us look like we’re not only equating moderate Muslims with terrorists, but all religious believers were jihadists, and may contradict our noble position on free expression and freedom of religion. If we charge that an act of religiously inspired terrorism tarnishes all believers and their places of worship, then we are left vulnerable to a similar accusation, and we’ve all had to deal with the Stalin=atheism argument too many times. I’m still flexible with my views on this particular issue, as I sympathize with the motives of many who wish to secularize ground zero, but these comments represent my thoughts at this time. I could see myself being convinced otherwise, and look forward to a productive ongoing dialogue on this and related matters.
I hope CFI Canada doesn’t bother drafting a position since the issues isn’t relevant to Canadian affairs. It was a fun summer exercise but is getting stale and I’m looking forward to September when there will be something new to talk about.
EDIT: The press release was revised and reissued two days later. See this post for more details. Full text of the first release below. Used without permission.
The Center for Inquiry is troubled by the rhetoric of some of those protesting the proposed Islamic religious center and mosque near Ground Zero, and it especially deplores the growing politicization of the dispute. CFI also holds that the focus of the protests is too narrow; it would be inappropriate to build any new house of worship in the area immediately around Ground Zero, not just mosques. “The 9/11 attacks were an example of faith-based terrorism, and any institution that privileges faith above reason is an affront to those who were killed and injured in those attacks,” observes Ronald A. Lindsay, president and CEO of CFI.
CFI fully supports the free exercise of religion; protecting the rights of believers and nonbelievers is central to CFI’s mission. Accordingly, CFI endorses President Obama’s recent statement reminding the country that Muslim Americans enjoy the same rights as other Americans and should not be treated as second-class citizens.
Further, CFI laments the effort by some to turn the proposed Islamic religious center into a political issue. Government officials and candidates for office should not intervene in disputes over the alleged offensiveness of a place of worship. Such conduct violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the Establishment Clause. Government officials should not be deciding who is a “moderate” Muslim any more than they should be deciding who is a “moderate” Christian or Jew.
A number of private individuals have protested the proposed Islamic religious center. The tone and substance of these protests covers a wide range. Some protesting the Islamic center have raised legitimate questions, but to the extent the objections to the Islamic center mistakenly equate all Muslims with Muslim extremists, CFI condemns them.
CFI maintains that a mosque near Ground Zero, in and of itself, is no worse than a church, temple, or synagogue. It is undeniable that the 9/11 terrorists were inspired by their understanding of Islam, and that currently there are far more Islamic terrorists in the world than terrorists of other faiths, but the deeper threat confronting humanity is not confined to Islam. To the contrary, it is presented by all religions. Religious morality is based on faith and authority, with the authority often being a sacred text cobbled together long ago that readily lends itself to contradictory interpretations. The Bible and the Koran have been used to justify almost everything, from mass slaughter of those with other beliefs, to slavery, to oppression of women and gays and lesbians, to the throttling of scientific research—as evidenced by the recent halt to stem-cell research. Faith will continue to harm and kill, whether it is in Oklahoma City or New York City, until people stop basing their conduct on imaginary divine commands and accept their responsibility to reason together. To honor those killed by faith fanatics, Ground Zero and its immediate vicinity should be kept free of any newly constructed house of worship — of any religion.
What do you get when you mix socialists with Islamic fascists?
Aug 18th
Go visit The Canadian Charger to find out. I would have found the site funny if I didn’t know they were actually serious about what they were writing as if combining two annoying ideologies could create some sort of exciting content.
I was pointed to the site by an article in the National Post that commented on one of the Charger’s articles that criticizes sick boy Christopher Hitchens. The Charger author implies that Hitchens deserves to die from cancer because of all the mean things he’s written. The article is ripe with every bit of all standard gibberish the extreme left can throw out there and isn’t really worth reading except for it’s entertainment value.
But what I found interesting browsing through the site was that is seems to be staffed by a bunch of passionate people who just want to write about issues they care about that go largely unnoticed by mainsteam media. I can certainly relate since I think we are in a similar situation at this site (although our bloggers will rarely ever agree on anything).
Their rhetoric aside, I still like their style and am wondering if something similar can be replicated for Canadian atheists. Can we sustain out own media outlet someday? We are horrible at donating money to existing organizations like CFI who have full and parttime staff devoted to getting our message out there and are forced to operate on an embarrassingly low budget. And yet last year the FAC was able to raise $50k in under two months, mainly from small donations, to put stupid ads on buses across the country. So I know there are enough people out there willing to put out to fund all kinds of amazing things. So how do we find them and what are we, as activists, doing wrong?
Christopher diCarlo and Infidel Book Club
Aug 15th
I’m in the midst of a busy few days here in Vancouver. Last night Dr. Christopher diCarlo, philosopher and 2008 Canadian Humanist of the Year, and today was the inaugural CFI Vancouver book club, which featured a discussion about the book Infidel.
Christopher diCarlo
The talk last night was great and attended by about 50-60 people. Dr. diCarlo was as engaging and humorous as the talks I saw him give in Toronto for the CFI Canada conference that happened this past spring.
His talk began with a discussion about how earlier in his teaching career he confronted a Native Canadian student who disagreed with the notion that we are all African (meaning that we all descend from ancestors in Africa) in one of his critical thinking classes. The confrontation climaxed when diCarlo admitted that the science was right and his ancestors beliefs were not.
After the student teamed up with some other anti-evolutionist Christians, diCarlo’s academic career got into hot water, despite his reputation as one of Ontario’s top lecturers.
He has taken “We are all African” as a personal motto, and is now using it to challenge cherished beliefs (he even has t-shirts for sale with the quote on it). The remainder of his lecture thus focussed on the evidence for an African descent of humanity and the social ramifications of it.
The bit on social and political ramifications was definitely the most intriguing bit of his lecture. By stating that we are all African, diCarlo argues that racism and most ethnic conflicts are the result of a failure to understand this commonality. He admitted that he wasn’t so naive as to think that if everyone got evolution that no more wars would happen (there are always battles over resources, etc.), but he did suggest that most conflict arises from these unnecessary and superficial differences that we see.
I think you can read more of his thoughts on this through an article in Humanist Perspectives which is available online.
I was helping organize carpools to the reception, so I missed most of the Q&A (the video will be available eventually through CFI Canada’s YouTube page), but one highlight I heard was a discussion about what he called HUAS in one of his books. HUAS stands for head-up-ass-syndrome where the sufferer begins by sticking their fingers in their ears, then covers their eyes, then eventually bends so far over that his or her head is firmly up the anus. He then stated that sometimes we need to be a pain in the ass when we pull those people out, and for some reason they don’t really know shit.
After the Q&A we adjourned to a ticketed reception at Moose’s Down Under. About 25 people showed up for drinks and appetizers with Dr. diCarlo and his wife (who has a broken ankle from the giant goose statue in Wawa, Ontario).
Infidel book club
Eleven people showed up for our first book club today, including a few people who hadn’t been out to any events yet (except for the talk last night). We discussed Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s book Infidel (saving her new book Nomad for a few more months down the road after people have gotten through this one) for about an hour and a half.
The discussion was great and there were lots of questions about the level of assimilation that should be pushed on new immigrants and whether multiculturalism or the melting pot philosophy is more successful.
For many of us, this book was our first introduction into the Muslim world, and I think it shocked a lot of us out of a somewhat cultural relativistic attitude.
There was also a lot of frustration about the left-wing’s apologetics with regards to Islamic practices and it was suggested that many people are ignorant of the fact that honour killing and genital mutilations are happening at an alarming rate in their own backyard. There was also a suggestion that even though Hirsi Ali is working with the American Enterprise Institute, she is somewhat transcending the traditional left-right dichotomy and is attempting to focus a discussion on human rights.
We also discussed her tone in the book. Many were impressed by the level of objectivity she was able to bring to many traumatic experiences. We tossed around a few theories about this ability, some suggested her education helped while others thought she either learned to control her emotions either to cope with the trauma or to be taken seriously in a culture where women are especially viewed as irrational and overly-emotional.
While we generally agreed that the Islam she grew up in is repressive and morally reprehensible, we failed to reach a consensus as to whether we have the right to intervene in a foreign countries internal affairs, even if human rights are being abused. We all agreed that we cannot be quiet and should criticize these practices.
After the discussion there was some talk of recording future events and making a podcast out of the discussion for others who want to hear some thoughts on these books, or at least letting portions be used in existing podcasts.
Our next book will be The Physics of Star Trek by Lawrence Krauss which we will discuss on Saturday, September 11 at The Grind Cafe again. After that we’ll do Marci McDonald’s The Armageddon Factor. The book club is tentatively scheduled for the second Saturday of the month for the foreseeable future.
Critical Thinking for Kids!
Aug 14th
At the beginning of September I will be co-founding the new Secular Parenting group at the Center for Inquiry – Ontario. This program is long overdue. A big complaint that we get from people is that events are held in the evenings almost immediately after dinner time and run into any child’s bedtime. This excludes parents from being active in the activity. There has also been the argument that this is a large contributor to the lack of women at the center, because they are at home taking care of the kids (I guess…). At least the first argument seems more than legitimate and enough of a reason to start making a specific time for parents to come and hang out at the center with other secular parents. They can discuss a variety of things from how to help children deal with death, how to teach them about religion and whatever else parents…do. It was something I wanted to start the entire time I worked there, but there always seemed to be something else that took up the time I should have been spending on this program. Now that I have a bit more free time on my hands, I’ve decided to start it up.
Here was the big problem – I’m not a parent… and I would actually make a really horrible parent. Also, just making a time and place specifically for parents doesn’t mean they automatically have free time away from their kids. So… I will be starting the program with another person. The other person will talk to the parents and I’m going to do kid time!(I know, I just said I’d make a horrible parent, but entertaining kids for two hours is a lot different than being responsible for how they turn out in life.) So now I’ve been thinking about different critical thinking/science/secular activities that I could run with children, and I thought I would open it up for suggestion! The criteria is pretty open at this point – for kids ages 4 – 10 (ish) that can be done with a group of kids in an indoor setting. Also, if it is quieter, it would be better… but not necessary. I want the activities to involved figuring things out, classifying things and using other critical thinking skills.
What are your ideas?!
Comments