Just one of the tracts is written for atheists; it is entitled “Who has the most to lose?” and predictably puts forth a summarized version of Pascal’s Wager–a closed dichotomy between evangelical Christianity and atheism:

When confronted with the claims of Christ, many people want to know what happens if Christians are wrong and there is no God. Conversely, the major concern of Christians is what happens to unbelievers if THEY are wrong. Who has the most to lose?
…
Suppose unbelievers are wrong….Most of all, dwelling in hell for all of eternity is the most horrible consequence imaginable.

I’m sure you can imagine where it goes from there. But wait, what about all those other religions? What if Christians are wrong and Muslims are right? What if neo-paganism is the best way to go and Mormonism is wrong? Why did the author of these tracts seem so ready to talk about other religions before he narrowed in on atheists and had to establish a false dichotomy that ignored other options beside Christianity?

This is the disingenuous reasoning behind every variant of Pascal’s Wager. If the best thing you can put forward in a tract for atheists is “better play it safe,” then the alternative option to atheism should simply be the religion that promises the worst hell. That would probably be Islam. But heck, I could make up a worse hell right now. On what grounds would that not become the new exclusive option in the dichotomy?

On no grounds whatsoever, of course. And those are the same grounds upon which Christianity is the exclusive option. There are other significant issues with Pascal’s Wager, but this one stands out to me the most. Can any serious person take the Wager seriously?

For example, I often hear something along these lines: “You are never going to be able to get the kind of scientific proof for God that you’re demanding.” The term “scientific” in these conversations subtly invokes the “non-overlapping magisteria” concept, implying that the atheist is locked into a laboratorial philosophic naturalism that prevents him/her from considering the possibility of something that by definition cannot be known.

Yet how can anyone–theist or atheist–claim that a god cannot be known or claim that there will never be a rational reason for believing that a god exists? If we agree on what “existence” means (and I really think we can), it is absurd to claim that a god–by definition–cannot be known. To do so would require the exact kind of knowledge about this god and its nature that is being called “impossible.” If a god exists, I maintain hope that we could actually find out. So far, there’s just no good reason to think that one exists.

And this leads to the second misunderstanding inherent in the question above: that rational inquiry (or “science”) is necessarily unable to discover some things about the universe. Science isn’t just something you do in the laboratory in a vain attempt to put god under the microscope. Science is an approach to life and reality that cares about distinguishing between true claims and false ones. When you do something as simple as looking for a candy bar that a friend told you was on your desk, you are using the scientific method to determine whether or not the statement is accurate.

My standards of evidence are simple: anything that exists has to make its case for existing. This does not preclude the existence of God, wind, computers, or fairies. I am not committed to philosophical naturalism, and I don’t know many atheists who are. And, as I said above, it is absurd (and internally contradictory) to say that a god can never be known by rational inquiry. But what cannot be rationally accepted as evidence of a god (or anything) are isolated appeals to ignorance, arguments from personal incredulity, or incoherent emotional testimonials that continually move the target back when questioned, rendering the claims unfalsifiable. If those are the standards of evidence you require to accept a claim as true, you should be a member of every religion, past and present.

Proper standards of evidence are found in a coherent epistemology. There will be multiple ways to explain anything, no matter how absurd the claim. True claims will stand up to rational inquiry, and the most reasonable of the varied explanations is the one that must be awarded the label of truth. Is there any better way of distinguishing between fact and fantasy?

I had the privilege of cohosting an interview with Roose tonight on the Infidel Guy podcast (under the name Mikhailovich). If you don’t have time for the book, his insights are certainly worth a listen. Go to www.infidelguy.com and select the most recent podcast (#490) from the dropdown list on the media player in the middle.

Update: If you don’t want to stream, you can download an MP3 of the podcast directly here.

Abortion is not arbitrarily controversial; it’s one of those issues that lends itself to controversy by attempting to draw a line in the middle of a nine-month gray zone. Very few outside the Catholic church would claim that the potential for human life equals human life, that birth control is murder, that a frozen embryo is a child, or that one cell (the likes of which you could destroy right now by scratching your head) equals a person. Likewise, very few would claim that a newborn baby is not a human being. Drawing the line is hard (“viability” might be the most common way), but most serious ethical decisions are hard; we have to do the best we can.

I present this brief explanation of the controversy to indicate that no one I’ve heard interviewed in the past week, on either side of the issue, has claimed that killing a child is acceptable. The anti-abortion folks like to claim that the pro-choice folks thinking killing babies is okay, and this is where the communication breaks down; their definitions of what constitutes a baby are different (though they’d probably both agree it’s not a zygote). Nobody I’ve heard on TV thinks killing babies is acceptable.

In that sense, I largely view the pro-choice response to Tiller’s murder as consistent. What would strike me as laughably inconsistent if it weren’t so tragic is the anti-abortion response. Remember, these are people who openly and sincerely equate abortion with homicide (have you seen the t-shirts?). Here’s a quote from the CNN article:

Operation Rescue, which has led numerous demonstrations at Tiller’s clinic, called the shooting as a “cowardly act.” And the National Right to Life Committee, the largest U.S. anti-abortion group, said it “unequivocally condemns any such acts of violence regardless of motivation.”

Can you feel the irony here? I mean, the whole we-oppose-murder-in-all-its-forms line grants their position some superficial credibility, but let’s be serious. If you truly believe that conducting abortions is the same as running around and killing little children playing in the streets, surely this response is too passive!

National Right to Life reports 49,551,703 abortions in the United States since 1973, and I’m using their language when I say that this many murders would be far worse than the genocide inflicted on the world by Hitler (thank you, Godwin’s Law). If this is the language you use to discuss the issue of abortion, should you really be so surprised (or even disappointed?) when some guy listens to you and takes matters into his own hands?

Operation Rescue released a statement directly after Tiller’s murder, which said, “We are shocked at this morning’s disturbing news that Mr. Tiller was gunned down.” Why on earth would you be “shocked”? In fact, wouldn’t it be more shocking if, after years of “abortion is homicide” rhetoric, nobody stepped up to the plate and took action? If you really believe that abortion in America is the greatest infanticide in history, why are you condemning Tiller’s murder at all?

I am consistently frustrated by organizations that repackage harsh beliefs to make them more socially acceptable. Operation Rescue and National Right to Life are certainly such organizations; any religious denomination that believes every human inherently deserves to be tortured forever simply for being human — that’s another. I wouldn’t discourage anyone from framing their beliefs in a positive way (everyone does this), but covering up harsh beliefs and pretending that they don’t have consequences is dishonest, despicable, and dangerous.

The e-mails I’ve been getting about the situation have all been from religious people. They guy writing the majority of the e-mails wanted us to “beg everyone to pray” and assured us that he would be “on my knees praying for the next six hours.” The girl who was paralyzed “needs people to believe that God can perform a miracle,” yet she “understands if it is not God’s will and she will still honor and glorify him either way.” These are real quotes.

I’m sure most people have received e-mails like this before, so I’d like to make a few general comments on the public perception of faith healing in Evangelical America, and I’d like to ask a few specific questions to people who believe in it.

I’ll start here: Do you believe God can heal? I.e., to rip of Epicurus, do you believe that God is both willing and capable of healing? (Some Christians would say no, claiming that God does not interact with the world, but the kind of Christians who send out prayer request e-mails like the one I’m referring to believe that God can heal.) If you do believe this, have you ever grappled with what kind of a God would base his help on how many hours you pray or on how firmly you believe that he’ll answer positively–while at the same time keeping openness to “God’s will” in the back of your mind so you’ll be submissive if his will is negative? Why do we “need people to believe that God can perform a miracle”? Why do we need to be “on our knees for hours”? If it’s not enough to ask once (nicely) for God to heal, then we’re dealing with a situation where cajoling and coercion can produce divine results–the exact scenario presented as a failure of pagan prayers in 1 Kings 18:25-29. Similarly, in the gospel of Luke, Jesus himself describes God as an eager giver of good things:

So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened. Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him! (Luke 11:9-13)

If anyone has to reinterpret this passage away from its clear meaning (and I haven’t yet met a Christian who doesn’t), it is not because the context demands a different meaning by itself; it is solely because the promise of Jesus is not true and has to be squared with reality in some way. The paralyzed girl I mentioned at the beginning of this post is in a situation where her earthly father wants her to be in better health than God does–in contradiction of Luke 11:13. If her father was given the opportunity to snap his fingers and make her better, I don’t think for a minute that he’d say, “Let me go talk with God and make sure it’s his will, because maybe you’re supposed to stay like this.” He’d just heal her–like Jesus apparently did. And if it’s clearly not God’s will to heal, why are we still praying/begging him to do it weeks and months later?

These are impolite questions, and they’re usually suppressed with appeals to God’s unknowable will. I’m asking them because it’s an insult to the paralyzed woman and her family to tell them that if they just pray harder, maybe God will do something. The reason we pray so long for things is that God isn’t there to answer. When we pray long enough, 1) we feel like we’re doing something helpful, and 2) it’s easier to slap on a “creative solution” answer over time and pretend like prayer works. Christians always leave God a loophole. In this case, sadly, she “understands if it is not God’s will and she will still honor and glorify him either way.”

Another question for the believer: If you think Jesus’ promises in Luke 11 (and elsewhere: Matthew 21:22; Mark 16:18; James 5:14-15) should not be taken literally and directly for some reason, how do you explain away the fact that the promises are given in stark, unqualified, direct terms? In other words, pretend for a moment that Jesus had wanted to give believers unqualified permission to ask for whatever they wanted; how could he have said it? Would he just have had to add an “I really mean this” clause to the end of the promises? Check out the passages above. They are already as strong and unqualified as possible…and demonstrably false.

Even so, what will happen if, in a month or so, this paralyzed girl is able to wiggle her toe or gain some mobility thanks to her determination and the quality of medical care she’s received? I’m confident that God would get all the glory. I’ve seen this many times, and it’s an utterly reprehensible reaction–from anyone’s perspective, Christian or not. Not only is it an insult to the doctors and PT practitioners who might have worked hard to achieve that result, it’s an insult to God. Think about it: months of prayers to an omnipotent being, and the best he can do is a partial restoration of health or mobility? What a god! If you’re omnipotent, it’s all the same for you. (And yet, of course, God never heals amputees…only people who might have gotten better anyway.)

Again, the practical Christian understanding of God is not defined by theology and grand ideals of omnipotence; it’s defined by reality, and we are therefore left with a weak, impotent, insecure, controlling, and ultimately imaginary deity who requires hours of prayer and strong faith mixed with the constant caveat that he might just not want to do it.

The biggest surprise of my experience as an atheist has been the response of my close Christian friends. I’m not entirely sure what I expected, and I wasn’t coming “out” to examine the reactions, but I’ve been surprised at the ecumenical, nonconfrontational interaction I’ve had with them. On the surface, this seems like a good thing–and I’ll admit that it’s been comforting to have the tacit support of people I love and respect.

After a bit of consideration, however, I have to highlight a subject that makes their acceptance legitimately uncomfortable: Hell. (To be fair, I’m also friends with a number of Universalists; and while I have no clue why they’d voluntarily make that choice, I’ll take up my quarrel with them another time.) The majority of my Christian friends, however, openly admit to believing in hell as a Real Place of Real Punishment–forever. To every one of you who believes in hell and hasn’t breathed a word to me about religion since finding out I’m an atheist: fuck you.

Too harsh? I don’t think so, and here’s why: I don’t even have to consider someone my friend to warn her about a potential, minor disaster that could occur in her future. And you can bet your ass that if I believed with all my heart that someone was going to be tortured forever, I wouldn’t care if he was my worst enemy–I would at least give him a warning based on the evidence I had to suspect (or know!) that he was going to receive what no moral judge would ever decree: infinite torture for finite transgression.

If you think that, as an atheist, hell is in my future, and you haven’t bothered to say a thing to me about it, you are either A) not a real friend, or B) not a real believer. If you think that you wouldn’t be able to convince me (despite the fact that my mind was open enough to be changed at least once), then why are you convinced? And if you are indeed convinced that so much is at stake, isn’t it at least worth a shot? I can’t recall a single instance where I’ve revealed my atheism to a believer and not accompanied it with the acknowledgment that I’m willing (and eager, in fact) to hear anyone and everyone out at least once.

In the past two days, I’ve received two unrelated e-mails from Christian friends that included the words “I love you.” It’s very nice, and those are sentiments that I would return in a heartbeat. But I can’t help seeing those words, taking a look at the religious quotes in the facebook profiles of the two people I’m referring to, and then wondering what the hell they actually believe–about me, and about their religion.

Perhaps this analogy will illustrate why I can’t get comfortable with the disparity between those beliefs and actions in the lives of my friends. If you knew right now (via revelation from God) that in one year, the holocaust was going to be repeated and millions of people were going to lose their lives in gruesome, awful ways, and that you had even a 1 percent chance of saving people you knew by talking to them and telling them, would you do it? Of course. Any reasonable person would.

As an unbeliever who thinks that hell is fiction and that I’m not going there, why do I care about this issue? I care because you do. Say there was a hand grenade lying on the sidewalk that I knew was not armed, but you thought it was; someone else runs up, also thinking the grenade is armed, looks at you, and then lobs it into a crowd. If your reaction is nonchalant and you make no move to stop the man who you thought was picking up a live grenade with malicious intent, then I think I’m justified in calling you an asshole. It doesn’t matter that the grenade was not armed.

I’m not writing this to invoke proselytization. I don’t necessarily want to talk about religion (although I’m always up for discussion). I just want to know why you don’t want to talk to me about it. I want to know why you feel okay believing in something that should make you very, very uncomfortable. When pressed, I suspect that many wouldn’t claim that I’m going to hell. How else could they be so casual? But it’s my sincere hope that everyone I know (including myself) will grow to care more and more deeply about living the examined life.

Ask yourself why you believe what you do. If you can’t come up with reasons that are convincing or worth sharing with others, why are you believing it? If you do have reasons, share them with people you care about. Tell them why. Who knows? Christianity (or Islam, etc.) could have it right, and perhaps I’ve missed something. God knows I’ve made a lot of mistakes in the past. Take the time to examine your beliefs. If they don’t hold up, you’ve saved yourself from believing a lie. If they do hold up, you have what is arguably the most important thing in the world to tell the unbelievers you love.

Dobson asked whether Palin was discouraged by polls showing the GOP ticket behind. “To me, it motivates us, makes us work that much harder,” Palin said. “And it also strengthens my faith, because I’m going to know, at the end of the day, putting this in God’s hands, that the right thing for America will be done at the end of the day on Nov. 4. So I’m not discouraged at all.”

If her ticket loses, will she admit that she & McCain weren’t the right thing for America? Has every president elect been the right thing for America, seeing as how God always makes sure the “right” thing is done at the end of the day? And if God is going to wrap it all up for her anyway, why bother working hard or campaigning?

I don’t think for a minute that Palin actually believes what she is saying here. She can’t believe it, or she wouldn’t be campaigning. It’s like praying when you get sick but going to the doctor anyway. You know prayer won’t work, but you talk about it despite that fact. You go through the motions. You tell yourself it’s powerful when nothing is happening to actually support that belief.

Palin’s statements are the type of mindless spiritual platitudes that religious people pull out of their pockets every Sunday to “encourage each other in the faith.” Without a second thought, they’ll talk about “God’s will being done” and the necessity of working to eradicate some societal “evil” in the same conversation. Perhaps talking about an omnipotent superman makes them feel less helpless, giving the illusion that everything is under the control of a deity that conveniently shares all their individual beliefs, prejudices, and presuppositions (which vary widely even within Palin’s Christian community).

The problem comes when those mindless spiritual platitudes turn into mindless theocratic dogma. Think: California’s Proposition 8. Watch this video of Palin speaking about her support for a constitutional amendment to make gay marriage illegal. Here’s what I transcribe from this speech:

I have voted in Alaska to amend our Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish that on the federal level, that’s where we’d go. I don’t support gay marriage. I’m not going to be up there judging individuals, telling them what they can and cannot do, but I certainly can express my own opinion here and take actions that would be best for traditional marriage, and that’s casting my vote….

Of course. And the KKK can express their own opinions and take actions based on those opinions as well. This doesn’t change the fact that the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which should be defended and upheld by those in public office, exist largely to protect the rights of the minority from the will of the majority. That’s why we’re not a direct democracy, where whatever 51% of the public wanted would become law.

No matter how many people (percentage-wise) want African Americans to become slaves again, the egalitarian laws of the land don’t allow the majority to discriminate–even though the Bible sanctions slavery. Your religious freedom means that you don’t have to associate with gay people if you don’t want to; it shouldn’t mean that you can pass legislation that denies them the same privileges you enjoy. We all have to live together, despite personal differences of opinion, hatred, religion, and preference, in a society that, as flawed as it might be, legally provides equality for all.

Want to impose your bigoted personal prejudices on others? I wish I could say, “Too bad, this is America,” but the presence of people like Sarah Palin in public office makes me realize how dangerously close we are to sacrificing the ideals of equality and liberty to theocratic morons who can’t see the difference between personal prejudice and national law because their heads are buried in hateful bronze-age rantings warmed over for mindless Sunday consumption.

What is Secular Humanism? One Humanist’s View

It is a common pastime among secular humanists to argue about the definition and meaning of Secular Humanism. But as every secular humanist has their own definition, nothing is ever agreed upon. That being said, the best short definition of Secular Humanism that I have found is the following:

Secular Humanism is that moral philosophy which teaches that the goal of all political and moral action should be the protection and promotion of individual human welfare.

Some people object to stressing secularism as a necessary part of humanism. I stress the secular nature of humanism because I believe that an absolutely essential feature of humanism is that it focuses solely on human dignity and welfare. If once you introduce “God” into humanism – as many religious humanists try to do – you create a second focal point, which draws your concern away from the individual. Eventually you must choose between your concern for people and your obedience to God. There is only one choice that humanism can make if it is to remain humanism. Since the focus of humanism is, and must be, the individual human being, “God”, as a concept, is at best irrelevant to humanism. Stressing the secular nature of humanism merely acknowledges this fact.

Other people object to the stress on human dignity and welfare. “What about other species? What about the environment?” they ask. But the stress on human welfare merely reflects the fact that we experience our lives as human beings. It is only natural for us to be concerned about our own dignity and welfare. To paraphrase Rabbi Hillel, if we are not for ourselves, who will be? And if we don’t take care of our own welfare, how can we hope to take care of the welfare of the rest of the planet? Ultimately, our human welfare is bound up with the welfare of the rest of our environment. In being concerned for our own welfare, we will also be concerned for the welfare of our entire planet.

Finally, some people object to this definition’s stress on individual human welfare. “What about our human community?” they ask. “Aren’t you just being selfish?” Well, no! This is not a call for unmitigated selfish individualism. Of course, Secular Humanists recognize that belonging to a community of fellow human beings is absolutely essential to our welfare, but “dignity” and “welfare” are experienced only by the individual, never by the group.

The great moral tragedies of the Twentieth Century – the Nazi Holocaust, the Soviet Gulag, and too many others – occurred not because the people involved were necessarily evil, but because they tried to promote the welfare of the group by sacrificing the welfare of the individual. Whether this is done in the name of “Der Volk” or “The Proletariat” or some other idealized group, once you begin sacrificing the dignity and welfare of individuals, you destroy the dignity and welfare of the entire community. It is only by defending the dignity and welfare of the individual that you can defend the dignity and welfare of the group.

Why am I a Secular Humanist? It is because I acknowledge the value of every individual. This value is not arbitrarily imposed from the outside by some higher authority. It is innate – a natural part of every person. It arises out of our sensitivity to the world around us, our empathy and compassion for others, and our capacity for rational and creative thought. Secular Humanism is based on a recognition of this innate value, and seeks to build a philosophic and practical framework around which we can live our lives.

What is Secular Humanism? Postscript: One Humanist’s Experience

I often share my essay “What is Secular Humanism?” with Christian believers. One common reaction to my essay is, “If that’s all there is to Secular Humanism, then I’m a Secular Humanist, too.” I don’t find this too surprising because this definition is based on the ideals of the Enlightenment. It is not surprising that people who love their country, Christians included, would want to embrace the ideals upon which our country was founded. But what I do find surprising is how many Christians will make this statement. I find this surprising because Christians should not be able to agree with this definition.

When Christians claim to accept this definition as a statement of their own beliefs, I have to point out to them that they have not understood what this definition of Secular Humanism is saying. They have failed to grasp the significance of one word – one simple common word – that makes it impossible for them, as Christians, to fully accept this definition as a statement of their beliefs.

The word I am referring to is the word “the” in the phrase “…the goal of all political and moral action…” To fully understand this definition, this phrase should be understood to mean “…the one and only goal of all political and moral action…” Read in this light, it should be clear that no Christian can unreservedly accept this definition. In fact, it is that single word “the”, which defines the true difference between Christianity and Secular Humanism.

To understand why this is, it is only necessary to remember that Christians accept the Bible as the word of God. In it, God reveals His plan for the World and for Humanity. Christians, if the term Christianity is to have any meaning at all, must accept this as a foundational belief of their religion. The problem with this is that the Bible also includes a long list of commandments – many more than a mere ten – for us to obey.

Christians, if they are to be true to their God’s will, must believe that, to be moral, they must follow these commandments. For Christians, therefore the promotion and protection of individual human welfare cannot be the one and only goal of political and moral action. It can only be a goal and, perhaps, not even the most important one. For Christians, obedience to God’s Will must always be another.

But what happens when obedience to God’s will conflicts with the obligation to promote and protect the welfare of the individual? When faced with this conflict, which of these two goals will Christians sacrifice? I doubt that any Christian can really know which goal they will betray until they have actually lived this dilemma. It is here that the Secular Humanist has the advantage over the Christian because this conflict can never arise for the humanist. The humanist has only one goal to seek.

I have watched the eyes of many Christians as they grapple with this conundrum. Some try to evade the implications of these conflicting goals by claiming that God’s Will always promotes and protects the welfare of the individual. But to make this claim, these Christians must deny much of what is in their Bible and a significant portion of Christianity’s history. Others simply refuse to discuss it further. But there are some Christians who seem to understand what that word “the” really implies and – although I may be fooling myself – in those Christians, I believe I have seen a dawning humility and a greater willingness to accept Secular Humanism as a valid moral alternative to religion.

I focus on one question: why the Twin Towers and building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed. One advantage of this focus, besides the fact that it allows us to go into considerable detail, is that the destruction of the World Trade Center provides one of the best windows into the truth about 9/11.
…
The official theory is rendered implausible by two major problems. The first is the simple fact that fire has never—prior to or after 9/11—caused steel-frame high-rise buildings to collapse. Defenders of the official story seldom if ever mention this simple fact.
…
The most important thing in a controlled demolition of a tall building close to other buildings is that it come straight down, into, or at least close to, its own footprint, so that it does not harm the other buildings. The whole art or science of controlled demolition is oriented primarily around this goal….If the 110-story Twin Towers had fallen over, they would have caused an enormous amount of damage to buildings covering many city blocks. But the towers came straight down. Accordingly, the official theory, by implying that fire produced collapses that perfectly mimicked the collapses that have otherwise been produced only by precisely placed explosives, requires a miracle.
…
The collapse of building 7 is even more difficult to explain than the collapse of the towers in part because it was not struck by an airliner, so none of the theories about how the impacts of the airliners contributed to the collapses of the towers can be employed in relation to it.

The primary logical fallacy committed by 9/11 Truthers like Griffin (and most conspiracy theorists in general) is exclusion, a form of selection bias that basically means “evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration.” Exclusion is one of the most dangerous fallacies. It closes down the mind to rational inquiry while still maintaining the guise of concern for evidence and truth. Most 9/11 Truthers, for example, maintain an image of genuine curiosity and a desire to know what really happened, claiming that they’re “just asking questions.” Their commitment to a predetermined conclusion, however, keeps them from ever being satisfied with the answers.

Essentially, it’s a reverse of the scientific method: they’re starting with a conclusion and then looking for the evidence. The collapse of Building 7 is a good example of this. 9/11 Truthers are already confident that it was a government-controlled demolition, so they look for evidence to support this claim. If they were merely looking for an explanation of Building 7’s collapse, would government-controlled demolition be at the top of the list of options? Much more reasonable explanations for Building 7’s collapse exist. Even if the government wanted to take down the two primary WTC towers in a controlled demolition that wouldn’t damage nearby buildings, why would they also need to take out Building 7 in a controlled demolition? What would that accomplish? Who would it help? It doesn’t make sense unless you’re starting with the idea that the government planned the whole thing–and then work backward to show selected evidence for why you think what you already do.

The evidence that Griffin and others have to ignore is massive and detailed. In the case of Building 7, he relies heavily on an early FEMA report that cited relatively minor damage to the building before its collapse, partially due to the fact that heavy smoke and ash prevented a clear view of the structure. Later evidence and research from NIST, which the 9/11 Truthers ignore, shows that the debris damage to Building 7’s south face was far more extensive than originally thought, there was significant damage to 10 lower stories, and the building’s collapse is explicable apart from conspiracy theory. If the Truthers choose to ignore workable, comprehensive explanations for Building 7’s collapse, they should at least be able to provide a workable, comprehensive government motive for destroying Building 7 along with the other towers.

There is also good evidence and explanations for exactly how and why the twin towers collapsed. Each of Griffin’s objections is answered by a simpler, less conspiratorial account from chemists and physicists who have examined the events. For example, jet fuel burns at 2190 degrees, 560 degrees lower than required to melt steel. Yet “steel weakens at as low as 400 degrees; at 980, it’s at only 10 percent strength,” according to industry experts. The steel frame didn’t have to liquefy before it was going to collapse.

One fallacious assumption leads to another, and the conspiracy builds on itself. After the bare assertion that the twin towers “perfectly mimicked the collapses that have otherwise been produced only by precisely placed explosives,” it’s easy for Griffin to ignore the damage done to Building 7 by the collapsing twin towers and say that because the twin towers represented a perfect controlled demolition (which they didn’t), we have no explanation for how Building 7 collapsed. You can get almost anywhere simply by starting with one false premise.

In summary, alternative explanations can always be devised (almost ad infinitum) for why a certain event occurred. (Hell, 9/11 could have been the work of aliens.) This is why determining the most likely explanation–with principles like Occam’s Razor–is so important. As Carl Sagan famously said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” If you are going to assert a massive conspiracy theory, a massive amount of evidence will be required in order for your theory to triumph over the sufficient and evidence-based “official explanation” that is currently in place.

Questions are a good way to probe and discover truth, but unanswered questions are not proof that a random other theory without supporting evidence is automatically correct. If unanswered questions exist (and in this case, they really don’t exist anymore), all it means is that more investigation is required. Sentences beginning with, “The only possible explanation is that…” are usually signs that the speaker is trying to push an idea without supporting evidence into the hole that exists in our current understanding of a situation. “Alternative” explanations can always be devised. Proper conclusions begin with phrases like, “The existing evidence strongly points to…” and the 9/11 Truthers don’t have evidence. They have obsolete gaps that have been filled in with good evidence for years.

Thank the gods it’s Indiana–so far. Does anyone have specific thoughts on these? I understand that there are two major schools of thought about church/state interaction (the neutral view and the nonpreferential view), and the people who are urging the state to print these certainly fall into the nonpreferential category (though I don’t see too much openness to the concept of “In Krishna We Trust”).

Personally (I guess I will give my opinion), I think the nonpreferential camp is pretty silly. Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore have made an excellent case for the neutral intent of Jefferson and Madison, and any government treatment of religion (even nonpreferential treatment among religions) necessarily means that taxpayers’ money is being funneled into religions that they do not endorse or accept as true (think: Faith-Based Initiatives). Government funding of religious organizations or causes is no different from coercive tithes, which were, of course, a flagship issue for founders like Madison and average people fleeing religious oppression in Europe.

On an even more basic level, however, I think the nonpreferential treatment of religion is dangerous because any kind of supernatural claim, given enough support, can count as a religion and demand “equal” treatment from the government. Government funding should be merit-based (and free from religious influence), not dished out among people who have in common a love of vastly different supernatural beliefs.