Sam Harris

I have always been interested in spirituality (see my blog post Fashion Faux Pas and Literary Lunacies: How Dawkins and Harris overhauled my intellectual wardrobe). Like many of my generation, I stopped off in ‘New Age Spiritualism’ on my journey towards atheism.

I found Sam Harris just as I was on the outskirts of Atheistville. I still had some souvenirs of “New Age Spiritualism” hanging around my neck, but I’d divested myself of most of the  ‘woo’ before I bought End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation – ironically with some ‘Christmas’ money given to me by a crystal-gazing aunt.

It was after reading Letter to a Christian Nation that a little light bulb went on in my head. I remember thinking, with some surprise, “Oh! I’m an atheist!”

As a new ‘gnu’ atheist, I found The End of Faith incredibly confronting with its negative portrayal of Islam – I was, and still am, far more concerned about fundamentalist Christianity.  Islam is dangerous but it’s out in the open and easy to spot.  The encroachment of fundamentalist Christianity is insidious, often silent and invisible.  We don’t recognise its stranglehold on our secular institutions until it’s happened.

Having been introduced by Harris to the ‘new atheist’ genre, I moved on to read Dawkins’ The God Delusion, and Hitchens’ God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.  Like Harris, they didn’t make me an atheist, they just made me realize I was one. More importantly, they politicized me and made me realise I should get off my arse and do something about the religious assault on secularism, human rights and individual autonomy.

Sam Harris took to the GAC 2012 stage and immediately acknowledged the late, great Christopher Hitchens.

Hitch, said Harris, “had more wit, style and substance than a few civilisations I could name.”

Fittingly, perhaps, Harris then went on to talk about death.

“The ‘good news’ of atheism,” said Harris, “is that nothing happens after death. We return to nothingness; so there’s nothing to worry about.  If we’re right, death is not a problem; life is the problem.”

“To not believe in God,” he said, “is to know that it falls to us to make the world a better place.”

Harris spoke of how religion makes the world  worse, not better.

Because of the interference of the Catholic Church, they are still arguing in the US about whether women should have access to contraception. This,  he said, “while the church nurtures ‘an army of child rapists’!

Harris also spoke of religion’s ‘misuse of human energy’ and its ‘manufacturing of human unhappiness’.

Harris accepts that we can’t make the world a paradise – and who would want one?

At university, when I studied utopian thought, I quickly realised that one man’s utopia is another man’s dystopia.  Harris is not concerned with creating a ‘perfect’ world or a ‘perfect society’, but he is concerned with the human condition – with making lives happier, more meaningful, more productive and, surprisingly, more ‘spiritual’.  More ‘gross national happiness’, perhaps.

And then, the important question, “What does atheism have to offer?”

If we are to argue for an ‘End of Faith’ what do we propose to put in its place?

Harris accepts that as ‘mere disbelief in god’ atheism doesn’t have much to offer. But, he said, “Atheism clears the space for better conversation.”

But can atheism do what religion does?

Harris acknowledged, for example, that religion can help people make sense of tragedy. It provides the answer that most people think they need.

“If your child dies in a car accident,” said Harris, “believing she’s in heaven with Jesus has to be consoling.”

So, we have to ask, “What is lost when we jettison religion?”

And, at least part of the answer is, “Total consolation in the face of death.”

If we are to argue for a world without religion, said Harris, “we have to build a bridge to deal with this fact.”

“We spend most of our lives tacitly assuming we’ll live forever,” he said. “There’d better be a heaven if we’re going to waste our time!”

Accepting that we have one life, and that is all we get, is a great motivation to make the most of our time.

But, if you don’t believe in God, “What is the point?”

It’s a sensible question, said Harris, and there is an answer. But, the answer requires a change of attitude towards life.

We need to learn to live in the present moment, he said,  reminding us that  “It is always ‘now‘.”

It is a ‘liberating truth about the nature of the human mind’, he said, “that the past is a memory; the future is merely a thought arising now”.

“We need to attend to the present moment. We need to consciously experience ‘now’; “because consciousness is everything”.

“How can we truly be fulfilled in life?”

“How can we make our lives worth living?”

The answer, said Harris, is that how we think about an experience determines how we feel about it.

It was at about this time that I felt I’d tumbled down some GAC rabbit hole and ended up in at an Eckhart Tolle lecture.

Eckhart Tolle, author of The Power of Now, was Oprah Winfrey’s poster boy for a while.  He was a bit too full of ‘woo’ for my taste but he did have a lot of good ideas if you stripped away the woo.

At 29, according to Tolle, he underwent an ‘inner transformation’ that led him to experience a constant ‘state of bliss’.

To his credit, Tolle says that religions “have become so overlaid with extraneous matter that their spiritual substance has become almost completely obscured”, that they have become “to a large extent … divisive rather than unifying forces” and become “themselves part of the insanity”.

To me, Harris’ message seemed to echo Tolles words’:   “the most significant thing that can happen to a human being [is] the separation process of thinking and awareness”. He says that awareness is “the space in which thoughts exist” and that “the primary cause of unhappiness is never the situation but your thoughts about it”.

Harris confirmed that he was speaking about ‘secular spiritualism’ and that meditation was one method to help achieve the ‘mindfulness’ he was speaking of.

“The antidote to  fear of death is to live life in the present,” he said.

“We have to create a world we want to live in; and religion is a bad way to do that.”

What happened next was, to many bizarre – to others, the highlight of the convention.  Harris took us through a guided meditation.

I had sat through many guided meditations during my stay in ‘New Age Spiritualism’, but I hadn’t expected to experience it in downtown ‘Atheistville’.  I admit some discomfort at being thrust into it unexpectedly. It’s not that I objected, or that I was offended. I guess I see meditation as a rather personal thing, something I’d like to be prepared for rather than having it ‘sprung on me’ .  But, I was up for any experience, so I closed my eyes and listened to the admittedly relaxing tones of Sam’s voice.

I was speaking to my friend Anthony, at the Sunshine Coast Atheists meeting tonight. He attended the convention and said he was quite moved by the experience of Harris’ meditation.

Me? Not so much.  Three late nights in a row, no breakfast, and the soporific sound of Sam’s voice soon had me nodding off.  I was putting too much effort into staying awake to really concentrate on anything else.

For me – and this is entirely subjective – the session would have been better in the first session of the day or after morning tea or lunch when we were a bit refreshed.  This isn’t a criticism of the organisers at all. I’m not sure that they knew what Harris planned to do and it’s difficult to shuffle speakers around because one of them might happen to put the whole audience to sleep!

I know that opinion was divided on the meditation. I’m perfectly willing to take the blame for the fact it didn’t do much for me, and I’m happy for those who found it a deep and meaningful experience.

Harris was aware that what he’d done might be thought strange or controversial.

“I’ve smuggled mindfulness meditation into this talk and foisted it on 4,000 atheists!” he laughed.

But, he explained, it’s important to know how to clear your mind and focus on ‘the now’.

“It takes a long time to realise how much thought is clouding our present experience.”

He felt that mindfulness and meditation can be useful in moments of crisis.

“Relief can be gained by bearing down on the present moment; it erodes the pain.”

I think there’s a lot of value to be had in Harris’ pursuit of ‘secular spirituality’.  I also think that living in the ‘now’ is good advice for those who want to maximise their happiness (and who doesn’t?).

What Harris didn’t talk about, but Eckhart Tolle does, is monitoring your ‘self-talk’; listening to and taking note of the silent conversations you constantly have with yourself and working to expunge negative feedback.  If you actually listen to your self-talk you’ll often find yourself saying some pretty hurtful and irrational stuff about yourself!  The ‘trick’ is not to accept the truth of what you tell yourself, but to challenge it and try to change the negative thoughts ‘looping’ through your head to something more positive.

Something else Harris didn’t discuss, but which I practice in my own life , is living in gratitude – trying to be constantly aware of how lucky I am to be alive and enjoying a life of such comparative luxury that many people in the world could not even imagine such good fortune.  I know that Dawkins often touches on this.  I find this an excellent way to put life’s small tragedies into perspective.   I’m not always ‘zen’ in the moment of crisis, but I think it helps me recover more quickly and move on. Not always, but mostly.

So, is meditation and mindfulness enough to fill the ‘void’ left by religious belief?

I doubt it. People are lazy and meditating effectively takes time and dedication.

“Jesus loves me, God will fix it,” is much easier.

I don’t think meditation is a discipline most people will practice; unless of course there’s a huge culture change and meditation is taught in schools and encouraged in the workplace.

And, is  it even necessary or desirable  to fill the religious ‘void’?  I think we need to have a conversation about that!

Is there even a ‘void’ to fill?

I can only speak for myself. Certainly my ‘New Age’ belief in an afterlife helped enormously to ease my grief when my father died. In fact, I think it may have eased it too much.  I loved him deeply but, to this day, I’ve never shed a tear at his passing.  I regret that.

When I realised – after reading Harris – that I was ‘an atheist’, I thought, “Oh dear, I guess I’m going to have to give up this idea of life after death!”

But, at the time, that idea was painful. I liked to believe my Dad was watching over me;  it gave me comfort and did no-one any harm. I knew it was irrational – I half knew it was fantasy – but it was a security blanket I wasn’t prepared to part with …. yet.

So, I didn’t push myself.  I just let it sit there, completely out of place with my other beliefs, until one day I thought, “Oh, it’s gone!”

And it didn’t hurt at all.

Speaking for myself, I’m not afraid of death. I see death as exactly the same as ‘before birth’. I don’t spend a moment regretting the years I missed before I was born, and I’m quite sure I won’t spend a moment regretting the years I missed after I’ve died.  The two states are the same – nothing/non-existence.

Pain is another matter, I’m quite afraid of pain.  If there’s going to be a lot of pain, let me die quickly!

I don’t know if it’s a good thing to ease the pain of a death of a loved one. Perhaps it’s a right of passage – something we just have to work our way through. Certainly I now regret that my grief at my Dad’s death was numbed by an irrational belief that he wasn’t ‘really’ dead.

I’ve given it quite a lot of thought over the past week and I think building strong, supportive communities is more important than encouraging atheists to take up meditation to fill the alleged ‘god shaped hole’.  My friends who have left religion behind often say the biggest loss was the support of a close, co-operative community.  Of course, when my friends admitted their atheism, those loving Christian communities pulled down their shutters and put out their ‘closed for business’ signs. Share the delusion or share nothing seems to be their credo.

I draw great strength and inspiration from the atheist ‘community’ – both real life and online.  Here I’ve found friendship, laughter, emotional support and (even more important) IT support!

Personally, I don’t feel a ‘god shaped hole’ in my life at all. I know how to meditate but I don’t find it particularly helpful.  That’s not to say, of course, that others won’t.  My sense of  ‘spirituality’ comes from love and service and laughter and gratefulness.

I think Sam Harris had some important things to say. I’d like to read more. But on the strength of his GAC 2012 speech, I can’t say I’m completely buying the whole package.

Chrys Stevenson

If you’re interested in meditation, you might like to read Sam Harris’ “How to Meditate”.

Back in 2009, in an effort to live up to their name, Atheist Alliance International decided to start hosting atheist conventions throughout the world.

With that in mind, they approached the Atheist Foundation of Australia, offering to provide seed funding for an AAI conference here in Australia.

The plan was to  give AAI a greater presence in Australia. This didn’t really happen.

Something got lost in translation (or ambition).  The AFA took the money and ran with it. They changed the name of the conference to the Global Atheist Convention, the AFA made a name for themselves and the AAI found themselves effectively sidelined. AAI became the ‘junior partner’ although the Convention was their idea and made possible with their money.

Having severed my relationship with the AFA (I don’t like the way they operate), I don’t know what’s happened in the interim but there’s been a changing of the guard and AAI had a higher profile (though not high enough IMHO) at this Convention.

Stuart Bechman, a delightful man who was president of AAI in 2010  (and MC at the 2010 Convention) has since stepped down. Replacing him is Tanya Smith an investment banker from Australia.  Tanya was on the original 2010 Global Atheist Convention organising committee and was also involved in the 2012 Convention.

It was good to see AAI given a chance to promote themselves at this Convention as I felt strongly that they’d been substantially short-changed for their investment in 2010. (That is my opinion, not necessarily that of AAI.)

Tanya Smith – Atheist Alliance International

Tanya’s speech was titled, “How do we change the world?”

She introduced Atheist Alliance International (AAI) as a global alliance of atheist groups and individual members.

One of the key functions of AAI is to help establish atheist groups, especially in countries where this is difficult. Tanya spoke, for example, of AAI’s role in establishing the Pakistani Atheists and Agnostics back in August 2011.

AAI also fields questions from around the world, from people asking about atheism, for advice and support in establishing atheist organisations, and for guidance in combating religious assaults on human rights and freedom.

The AAI now has a global convention program.  Tanya echoes my own view that making personal connections with each other is critical if we are to make an effective stand for atheism and secularism.

I was delighted to hear that AAI has been instrumental in opening the Kasese Humanist Primary School in Uganda. The school opened early in 2011 and now has 300 students, and growing. Uganda has been the victim of Christian fundamentalist dominionism. Educating children in a secular school is a brilliant strategy to help them fight back against this rampant religious imperialism.

You can learn more about the Kasese school on its website. You can also get involved by sponsoring school fees for one or more students,  or a teacher’s salary.

Here are the kids singing and shouting “Humanities!” on assembly:

Another priority for AAI is to gain international status for atheists. To that end, they are seeking to gain consultative status with the United Nations.

You can apply to have your organisation affiliated with AAI, or join as an individual member – or simply donate to the great work they’re doing.  Members also receive issues of AAI’s excellent “Secular World” magazine in which I’m very proud to have been published … twice!

For more information go to the Atheist Alliance International website.

Annie Laurie Gaylor – Freedom from Religion Foundation / Freethought Radio

One of my major complaints about atheists and atheist organisations is that we talk a lot but we really need to get out and DO SOMETHING!  That’s one reason I’m very happy to promote Atheist Alliance International which seems to be doing much more than self-promoting and putting signs on buses.

Another organisation I’m delighted to promote is America’s Freedom from Religion Foundation – run by feminist, Annie Laurie Gaylor and her husband, former evangelical preacher, Dan Barker.  FFRF has 18,000 members and functions primarily as a watchdog on violations of America’s constitutional  separation of church and state. They filed 50 lawsuits last year and won many.

Annie Laurie and Dan also have a nationally syndicated radio show and podcast: Freethought Radio.  It’s well worth subscribing to their podcasts.

Annie Laurie began by confessing that she had ‘PM’ envy. Our atheist PM may not be ideal, but an atheist President in the US is currently an impossibility.

“There is a defacto religious test for office in the USA,” she said.

It seems that it’s not only non-Americans who view America’s ‘God fixation’ with a degree of fear.

“A superpower which looks to the supernatural is just plain scary!” said Annie Laurie.

Annie Laurie Gaylor is a third generation freethinker. She believes it is immoral to indocrinate children with fear and neuroses.

Annie Laurie said she was sorry to hear that Australia’s state/church separation had been subverted (due to the 1981 High Court decision in the DoGS case).

Annie Laurie urged us to keep defending Australian secularism, “You don’t want the religious right in your country!” she said.  Unfortunately, Annie Laurie, they’re already here!

She was also adamant that the state should not fund religious programs (like the National School Chaplaincy Program).

“Where public money goes,” she said, “public accountability must follow.”

“Public money should not fund divisive programs.”

Annie Laurie told us about Jessica Ahlquist, a 16 year old atheist from Rhode Island who lobbied successfully to have a prayer removed from the wall of her high school – where it has hung for 49 years. Jessica has been vilified and threatened for doing nothing more than asking her school to uphold the Constitution. State Representative, Peter G. Palumbo, a Democrat from Cranston, even called Jessica “an evil little thing” during a radio interview.

The Freedom from Religion Foundation has supported Jessica and awarded her a $13,000 scholarship for her activism.  Wouldn’t it be great if we could do this kind of thing here in Australia and actively encourage our brightest young people to stand up for a secular Australia?

Another initiative of the FFRF has been to encourage Catholics to stop supporting the Catholic Church with their ‘membership’.  We already know there are many Catholics who are appalled at the actions of their church in relation to contraception, same-sex marriage, euthanasia, abortion, the sexual abuse of children and subsequent cover-ups,  etc – but they fail to take that extra step and quit. In particular, the Catholic Church in America is opposing the inclusion of contraception in the new Health Care Plan.

In response, in March this year, The Freedom From Religion Foundation placed a full-page ad in the New York Times, headlined:  “IT’S TIME TO CONSIDER QUITTING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.”

The ad reminds Catholics that the Church “hasn’t persuaded you to shun contraception” and encourages Catholics to leave the church – en mass (another brilliant ‘bon mot’ from Dan Barker).

Notably, the NYT would not publish the advertisement as submitted. The original headline was “IT’S TIME TO QUIT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH”.  It had to be modified before the paper would print it.

The FFRF also produced a television commercial in response to (failed) Presidential hopeful, Rick Santorum’s claim that John F Kennedy’s landmark speech on the separation of church and state almost made him throw up.

Annie Laurie noted that the background music which we would recognise as “God save the Queen” has another lyric in the US, “Let freedom reign”.

I’ve spoken previously about the dangerous symbolism of prayers in parliament. Annie Laurie agreed.

“Government prayer is an affront to Reason!” she said, urging politicians to, “Get off your knees and get to work!”

“There is a time when religion ruled the world,” she said, “It’s known as ‘The Dark Ages’.” Hear, hear!

America is facing its own ‘dark age’. Annie Laurie noted that the US Supreme Court is now dominated by right-wing conservative Catholics who vote as a block. The ‘land of the free’ is turning into a theocracy.

This is one of the reasons I keep urging Australians to sit up and take notice of what is happening here. It’s this insidious infiltration of religious extremists into our parliaments, legislative bodies, public service and schools which will take us down the same path as America. Fundamentalists are quietly waging an assault on Australian secularism, and we are blithely standing by (with the exception of people like Ron Williams) and letting them.

Wake up and DO SOMETHING!

Chrys Stevenson

I ‘Resurrect’ after the Gala Dinner

I woke early on the morning after the Gala Dinner wondering how many more Atheist Conventions I had in me! The pace was gruelling, my brain was overloaded, and my poor feet were throbbing! But, another day beckoned, so, zombie-like, I raised my arms and shuffled back into the fray.

The Hilton Hotel and the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre are connected at the first floor level.  Hilton guests need only go to the first floor, walk through some heavy doors, through a large reception area, and down an escalator and they’re in the main exhibition area of the MCEC.  Riding down the escalators in the morning to the sight of 4,000 massed atheists was really something to make my secular heart sing.

As one journalist noted, 4,000 people may not seem a lot compared with Hillsong’s congregation, but Hillsong’s congregation don’t have to pay $400 each to attend or fly in from around Australia and 40 countries around the world. That takes a huge level of passion and commitment to a cause.

Having attended the Convention twice now, I can verify that the people attending are mostly not the kind to whom $400 and an interstate (or international) airfare is a mere bagatelle. These are ordinary working folk, students and retirees who have made a real financial sacrifice to stand up and be counted.

Eugenie Scott

Eugenie Scott was the first speaker of the day. A gracious, elegant woman,  Eugenie is, nevertheless, a fierce campaigner against the teaching of creationism and intelligent design in schools.  MC, Laurence Leung, noted that she has been dubbed ‘Darwin’s golden retriever’ (an allusion to Darwin’s friend and contemporary, Thomas Huxley, who called himself ‘Darwin’s bulldog’).

Eugenie, (I’m going to refer to her by her first name, ‘Scott’ just doesn’t sound right somehow), began by noting that there are different kinds of creation ‘theories’. Broadly speaking there is Young Earth Creationism (YEC), Old Earth Creationism (OEC) and Intelligent Design.

YEC posits that God created the earth and  the life upon it more or less in its present form 6,000-10,000 years ago, within the time-frame given in the Old Testament.

OEC accepts that the earth is far older than 10,000 years and teaches that God created life, sequentially, through time (thereby explaining the distribution of plants and animals in the fossil record.)

While YEC and OEC may accept some forms of micro-evolution within ‘kinds’, they do not accept that one species can evolve into another.

Intelligent design accepts much of evolutionary theory including natural selection, but argues that the complexity of certain body parts and the progression from one species to another is too complex to occur ‘naturally’ and, therefore, must have required the hand of an intelligent ‘designer’.

More information on the different kinds of theories is available here:  The Creation/Evolution Continuum by Eugenie Scott.

Eugenie spoke about various interpretations of the sedimentary deposits in the Grand Canyon and nearby geological features, the Zion and Bryce Canyons.

Young earth creationists believe (naively!) that Noah’s flood explains the sedimentary deposits.

“5,000 feet of sediment deposits in one year!” exclaimed Eugenie, pointing to the absurdity of the hypothesis.

She showed us a photo of the Coconino Sandstone which has a layer of ‘wind lain’ sediment between two layers of water-lain sediment.

This tends to bugger up the young earth creationists theory that the Grand Canyon was created in ‘one go’ within the space of a year by Noah’s flood.

No problem! The YEC-ers simply argue that geologists are mistaken and the wind-lain strata of the Coconino is actually water lain. It must be – otherwise they’re wrong and that’s simply not possible!

There’s a flaw in their theory, however. There are footprints in the middle strata of the Coconino Sandstone. This is entirely consistent with it being wind-lain, but rather bizarre if the footprints were laid and fossilized under water!  Nevertheless, a YEC scientist did some experiments with salamanders (back in the late 70s) and determined that footprints could, indeed, be laid underwater.

There’s just one small glitch – the trackways in the Coconino show the prints of apparently fast-moving insects such as spiders and scorpions.  (Try putting a spider in an aquarium and see how you go getting it to leave tracks in the sand!)

If you’re interested in this, there’s an excellent article here:  Coconino Sandstone (startling evidence for Noah’s Flood) by Gary Neyman (Answers in Creation).

The Coconino theories, says Eugenie,  illustrate how young earth creationists fail to consider refuting data.

“They only seek out data that confirms their views,” she says.

“It looks like science … but it isn’t.”

But, she said, at least creation ‘science’ makes fact claims that can be tested. Intelligent design makes none.  Intelligent design, she said is ‘stripped’ of fact claims.  ID provides: no historical narrative, no pattern, and the process (micro-evolution) is only ever inferred.

Why this aversion to evolution?

“Evolution,” Eugenie explained, “undermines the concept of ‘original sin’.”

If there was no ‘original sin’, there was no need for Jesus to be sacrificed on the cross (at least in the minds of creationists).

But, more broadly, Eugenie believes intelligent design is based upon an animosity towards philosophical materialism. If science does not support a Biblical world-view, then we have to change how science is done!

Eugenie spoke of the Discovery Institute’s ‘culture warriors’ and its Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, headed by Stephen Myer (author of the Wedge Strategy).  This, said Eugenie, is a “radical assault on material culture and the science behind it.”

Indeed it is. The Wedge Strategy document states that:

“[The] Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature. The Center awards fellowships for original research, holds conferences, and briefs policymakers about the opportunities for life after materialism.”

But, Eugenie was at pains to point out that not all materialists are atheists. There are two kinds of materialism, she said: methodological and philosophical. They are not the same, although ID proponents like to conflate them.

Science is methodologically materialistic. It makes no claims about the supernatural – it neither believes nor disbelieves. Science is concerned with describing and explaining nature.  Therefore, its focus is on that which is natural rather than supernatural. The supernatural is not something about which scientific assumptions can be made. As  ‘there is no way to contact, detect, or otherwise empirically observe the supernatural’ it is outside the purview of science [see Rational Wiki for more detailed explanations].

Philosophical materialism, on the other hand, does make the claim that the natural, the material, is all there is.

Contrary to what ID proponents would have us believe, Eugenie explained, not all methodological materialists are philosophical materialists. Many are, but not all. There are certainly many mainstream scientists who respect the materialism of science but, nevertheless, hold a philosophical belief in a supernatural intelligence.

Eugenie mentioned Phillip Johnson’s manifesto against scientific materialism, The Wedge of Truth.  Johnson appears to believe that our materialistic society rests upon a pillar of scientific materialism. That pillar is embedded in the foundation of evolutionary theory. This gives rise to the hypothesis that, if evolutionary theory can be destroyed, the whole structure will topple; “…  the walls of naturalism will fall” and  the Christian gospel will provide the “new foundation for thinking – not just about science and religion but about everything that gives human life hope and meaning.”

There is a belief that we have to open up science to allow for miracles, says Eugenie. (And I am moved to say, “God forbid!”)

Eugenie stressed that creationism and intelligent design are not about science – they are ideological and political. The push to ‘teach the controversy’ about evolution in schools has nothing to do with science, but is a part of America’s on-going culture wars.

Read the NCSE.com (National Center for Science Education) news alerts, she said. “Sort for the state of Tennessee – it’s very depressing!”

She’s right! Lead stories detail the passing of an anti-evolution “monkey bill” in Tennessee which allows (compels?) science teachers to ‘teach the controversy’. Eugenie has, of course, responded, warning that:

“Telling students that evolution and climate change are scientifically controversial is miseducating them. Good science teachers know that. But the Tennessee legislature has now made it significantly harder to ensure that science is taught responsibly in the state’s public schools.”

During questions, Eugenie recommended theist, Ken Miller’s book,  Finding Darwin’s God.

While conceding that Miller suggests (in a separate part of the book) that God may have intervened at a quantum level, she says that his initial argument “lays waste to creationism”.

She said that she would not reject Miller because of his concession to intervention.

“I take allies wherever I can get them!”

Eugenie concluded by stressing once again that intelligent design has no basis in science.

“It is a political position – not a scientific one.”

Chrys Stevenson

One of the big decisions facing those attending the Global Atheist Convention is whether to pay the exorbitant price of a ticket to the Gala Dinner.

I received a free ticket to the dinner in 2010 (apparently in lieu of a mention on the program for my many months of work – yes, it still smarts).  This year, I chose to fork out the $150 based on my very positive 2010 experience.

Was it worth it – well, yes and no.

I should preface this by saying it’s not really a criticism of the GAC organizing committee who did a superb job with the whole convention. I guess it’s more a matter of misjudgment than anything – and misjudgment made for all the right reasons, I expect.

The first issue is that $150 is a very large amount of money for dinner for one. For those of us old-fashioned enough to believe that one should dress up for a gala dinner, there’s the considerable added expense of clothes and jewellery. Yes, I know, this is entirely optional – but it’s something one has to factor in.

In 2010 the food provided by the Melbourne Convention and Entertainment Centre was superb. It was way beyond what I expected and, as I recall, everyone was raving about it. This year’s offering was very different.

The entree was a pretentious nouvelle cuisine mish-mash of mismatched tastes.  It was pretty, but that was the only sense it satisfied.

Main course for non-vegetarians  was either fish or lamb – served alternately. I hate that. I know you can swap around with people at your table, and I know that it’s probably the only workable method for such a huge crowd, but for $150 I’d really like to be able to choose my own main. Small quibble, but there it is.

I was lucky – or so I thought. I had the lamb plonked down in front of me. It was an unappetising hunk of brown meat with a tiny squirt of tasteless sauce (probably a ‘jus’ given the pretension of the entree).  The lamb was overcooked and stringy. It was supposed to have been accompanied by Potatoes Dauphinoise – misspelled Duphinoise  on the menu. Perhaps the missing ‘a’ excused the fact that it contained none of the standard ingredients of a Dauphinoise – cream, butter and cheese. Instead, it was an insipid, under-seasoned, flavourless square of potato slices which no self-respecting Frenchman would have touched with a barge pole.  A couple of forlorn baby carrots sat drearily on the plate as the ‘token’ vegetable.

The desserts were very good, but tiny. I had some kind of lemon sorbet thing and a chocolate mousse in a chocolate basket which surely came from a different kitchen than the pap served previously.

Now, none of this is the fault of the Convention organisers, but I know the MCEC can do better – and they really should have.

The entertainment for the night is my next gripe. I can understand that the organisers wanted to give us maximum value for money, and I do appreciate the thought. The entertainment program was packed – over-packed.  The thing is – the Saturday night dinner is one of the only chances Convention-goers have to catch up with each other. We find each other far more entertaining than most of the acts.  This, unfortunately, proved true as people increasingly got frustrated and just talked over the top of the entertainers.  It wasn’t fair on the entertainers, but it wasn’t fair on the dinner guests either.

Simon Taylor was the MC for the night. He did a professional job, but why book someone with Taylor’s talent as an illusionist and not have him perform?

I love Brian Dalton aka Mr Deity but a technical problem took the wind out of his sails and, I think, the momentum was lost for the whole evening. I don’t know whether the problem was the tech crew’s or Dalton’s, but having an international speaker floundering at the podium unable to launch his video wasn’t a good look.

And then there was the startling omission (again!) of Dan Barker – a brilliant musician and song-writer from our own international atheist community.  Supposedly the reason given for not including Dan was the expense of hiring a piano. I’m sorry, but if I had a chance to book Dan Barker I’d organise the budget to include the cost of a piano.

There were some laughs to be had from the other entertainers, but the sound was not great and most people just decided to chat amongst themselves.

I was blown away by Catherine Deveny’s performance at the 2010 GAC. It was a real tour de force. This time her performance seemed to lack verve and including her 2010 spat with Cardinal George Pell just seemed like she was stretching for material. Sorry, Catherine, I do love you, but the Pell thing is over – move on!

So, on the strength of the food and the entertainment, the investment of $150 for the gala dinner was definitely not worth it. But I wouldn’t have missed it for the world. The chance to dine in the company of Michael Barnett (@mikeybear), Gregory Storer (@GregoryStorer), Kieran Dennis (@dolmiogrin), Linley Kissick (@postielinley), AronRa, Andrew Skegg (@askegg), Robert Cope and Sean Jelinek (@SeanJAus) was priceless.

It was also great to catch up with Carol Wocker, @MsPraxis and @Tradrmum, OJ Lesslar, Kazza from Queensland, Martin Pribble (@MartinPribble), Colin Mackay, Russell Blackford (@Metamagician), Jonathan Meddings (@TheCarapace), Jin-Oh Choi (@JinOhChoi) and many more.

I spent quite a lot of time talking with Dr David Leaf from Dying with Dignity (NSW) and new friend, Neil Francis, head of Your Last Right. One of my new interests is forging closer links between us ‘generic’ atheists/secularists and those targets of religious propaganda and interference whose interests are more specific – e.g. voluntary euthanasia, women’s reproductive rights, scientific research, secular education, gay rights.

In this same vein I was delighted to have time to chat with Jane Caro about government funding for private schools. Perhaps because I was educated (in part) at a private school I’ve never objected greatly to reasonable funding to that sector – based on the premise that the parents of private school students pay a portion of their tax for education facilities and are entitled to the benefits of that. I have to say even a brief chat with Jane had me re-examining my stance on this.  I look forward to chatting with her further and maybe blogging on the pros and cons of government funding for private schools.

I’m not much of a ‘fan girl’, so hunting down celebrities is one of the things I’m least likely to do. One ‘celebrity’ I did want to meet, though, was Fiona Patten, leader of the Australian Sex Party. I’m not tied to any political party – nor do I intend to be – but I admire Fiona Patten greatly and she’s generously retweeted links to some of my work in the past.  But, before I had a chance to go hunting for Fiona, she found me, saying, “Chrys Stevenson? I really wanted to meet you!”

Wow! That was my ‘memorable Convention moment’ right there! Fiona turned out to be a lovely, down-to-earth gal and another person I’d like to spend far more time with.

One event at the Gala Dinner, I think, epitomised what the night should have been all about – fun and making real human connections. I’ve never thought much about the convention of sitting all the VIPs down the front – why not spread them amongst the hoi-polloi? Do we really have to set up this artificial ‘us and them’ division at atheist conventions?

PZ Myers is one of the most accessible of the Convention speakers. Throughout the Convention, PZ and Australian blogger Martin Pribble got involved in a good-natured spat over their respective rankings in a poll for the best atheist/agnostic blog for 2011.  As (mock) tensions rose during the Convention it was decided that a duel was in order and, as no duelling pistols were to hand, a hug-off seemed a reasonable compromise.

And here it is, captured for posterity by Andrew Skegg.

Yes, folks, that’s what we ‘militant atheists’ do when we get together. We hug each other – frightening, isn’t it?

So, to answer the question posed at the beginning of this post, “Was it worth attending the Gala Dinner?”
“Definitely, yes!”
But if we do it again, can I ask the organisers to consider something more informal and something which allows much more free time for Convention attendees just to ‘hang out’ and chat and hug and make real life friends out of cyber-friends. Because, you know, that’s really what we’re there for.  And, ultimately, building stronger real-life links within our various ‘communities’ is going to pay far greater dividends for secularism than watching any comedy act – no matter how good it is.

Chrys Stevenson

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, author of the books Infidel (2007) and Nomad: From Islam to America – A personal Jorney Through the Clash of Civilizations (2010) took the stage accompanied by thunderous applause.

Hirsi Ali’s key concern is the treatment of women under Islam but her most recent book takes a broader perspective in examining the relationship between Islam and the West.

Hirsi Ali referred to the grass-roots uprisings in Arab countries during 2011 – dubbed the Arab ‘secular spring’.  But, said Ali, if Arab nations are enjoying a secular spring, what would an Islamist winter look like?

Before answering that question, Hirsi Ali paused to tell us about Fatima Abdallah. This ‘detour’ so early in her speech seemed to be a deliberate attempt to gain the attention and support of the previous speaker, Geoffrey Robertson.

Fatima Abdallah’s story can be read here. Briefly, she was a divorced and barren Muslim woman, living (in a tense relationship) with her family in Florida.  Fatima died from having her head repeatedly bashed against a coffee table. She suffered broken ribs and her blood was spattered all through the house. Her family did not call 911 until 2 1/2 hours after her death.  Their testimony is riddled with inconsistencies. And yet, in an apparent concession to Sharia law, Tampa police bizarrely accepted the family’s story that Fatima committed suicide.

Hirsi Ali pleaded with Robertson to help her reopen the case, or point her towards other lawyers who may be able to help.

She then returned to the subject of her speech.

“Fellow unbelievers,” she began, “You godless lot …”

She paused again, for a moment to express her grief at the loss of Christopher Hitchens but soon moved on.

“What would a secular spring mean to the societies in North Africa?” she asked.

It would bring:

• democracy
• the rule of law
• the end of corruption
• an end to human rights violations
• freedom of speech
• freedom of the press
• freedom of conscience
• freedom of religion
• women’s rights – including laws to protect women from domestic violence
• peace with Israel
• recognition of the right of Israelis to have a Jewish state
• and the end of Islamic terrorism

And these progressive changes, she said would lead to economic growth sourced from greater foreign investment and burgeoning tourism.

Importantly, with greater freedom and better economic conditions, Muslim youth would begin to develop confidence in ‘life before death, as opposed to life after death.’

But, said Hirsi Ali, the uprisings have not brought a ‘secular spring’, but an ‘Islamist winter’.

Hirsi Ali was highly pessimistic about the changes wrought by the Arab protests.  In places like Tunisia, Yemen and Libya, she said, Islamists are already in power, or soon will be. The situation in Syria is ‘ongoing’.

Islamist governments, she said, bring ‘religiously sanctioned corruption’. They promise tolerance to non-Muslim women, but these promises are broken. They are jailing authors and artists on charges of ‘provoking society’.

“Provoking society!” said Hirsi Ali, “What else is an artist supposed to do?”

As Islamists move in to fill the void left by the expulsion of the dictators, human rights will be violated and excused as the will of Allah.  There will be no freedom of speech, no freedom of conscience.

The legal age of marriage for girls will be lowered to nine.

Women will live in a state of perpetual guardianship.

Sharia law will justify violence against women – both in public and in the home.

There will be no peace with Israel – although Islamic governments will continue to make noises about trying to achieve it.

“The double-speak will continue,” said Hirsi Ali, “but they do not support the two state solution.”

Domestic terrorism will increase.

Elections have been held but it is significant that the secular parties did not do as well as the Islamists. These secular parties are not atheistic, she said, but they do support the separation of church and state.

It was a bleak assessment of the result of the popular uprisings which had given many of us hope for change in the Middle East and North Africa.

But, said Hirsi Ali, there is hope, and it comes from pressure being exerted by the Muslim diaspora.

She also spoke of young, pro-democracy activists like Hamza Kashgari, a Saudi poet and former columnist for the Saudi daily newspaper, al-Bilad.  On the day of the ‘prophet’s birthday’ in February this year Kashgari sent a series of tweets:

• On your birthday, I shall not bow to you. I shall not kiss your hand. Rather, I shall shake it as equals do, and smile at you as you smile at me. I shall speak to you as a friend, no more.
• On your birthday, I find you wherever I turn. I will say that I have loved aspects of you, hated others, and could not understand many more.
• On your birthday, I will say that I have loved the rebel in you, that you’ve always been a source of inspiration to me, and that I do not like the halos of divinity around you. I shall not pray for you.

Kashgari made the tweets to make a point about human rights and freedom of expression.

He also enraged his critics by saying that Saudi women “won’t go to hell ‘because it’s impossible to go there twice.'”

Soon, there were 30,000 tweets calling for Kashgari’s death.

Kashgari is in deep trouble. But there is pressure being exerted from more moderate voices in the diaspora. For example, the Association of British Muslims has called on the Saudi King to drop any charges against Kashgari, arguing that:

“Thought crime is no crime at all, … Any state enforced penalty for perceived blasphemy runs contrary to the true spirit of Islam, and of our Prophet, peace be upon him, who was compassionate even to those who scorned him. … No one should be legally prosecuted, imprisoned or detained for simply expressing themselves.”

Secular forces in Muslim nations need help from the West, said Hirsi Ali. Their secular parties need our help to win Islamic hearts and minds. But help is not forthcoming. Why?

She spoke of the tendency to ‘romanticize’ the primitivism of ancient cultures – to view Islam, in a way, through the distortion of our own dissatisfaction with Western civilization.

She spoke of ‘white guilt’ – that special sort of embarrassment we in the West feel about our inability to defend the ideas that liberated African-Americans and women.

She said that it was conservatives and Christians who had stepped up to defend free speech and to defend Israel – not liberals. For example, said Hirsi Ali, it is a Christian group which has taken on the case of Fatima Abdallah.

Personally, I’m not sure that I agree with much of what Hirsi Ali said in this part of her speech – although I may change my mind after reading her book. I think perhaps there are at least four things which prevent Western secularists from charging into the internal politics of Muslim nations:

1) fear of reprisals – who wants to risk a fatwah against them?

2) fear of being accused of being racist or Islamaphobic

3) a feeling that we don’t understand Islam sufficiently to fight it in the same way we oppose Christian assaults on freedom of democracy

4) a feeling that while we have a ‘right’ to criticise Christianity (because that’s our culture) we have less right to attack Islam

5) a feeling of helplessness (and hopelessness?) and a lack of direction – we don’t know what will be helpful, and the problem seems just too large.

Hirsi Ali called on Westerners to:

1.  Develop a secular/liberal narrative to counter Islamist doctrine and methodology.

2. To help build up liberal institutions in Muslim nations.

3. To help secular activists with policital and policy training.

It is time for action, said Hirsi Ali.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali has suffered greatly for her apostasy. Even at the Global Atheist Convention she was flanked by security guards.  Outside the Convention Centre, the day after her speech, Islamic protestors held placards that read, “Message to INFIDEL Ayaan Ali Hirsi [sic] BURN IN HELL FOREVER”

During her speech Hirsi Ali explained how the Dutch government first housed her in a ‘bullet proof’ house – and then moved her to one that was ‘bazooka proof’. She has endured the murder of her friend and collaborator, Theo van Gogh.

Her life is constantly at risk. Her freedom curtailed by the threats of religious extremists and fanatics.

And yet, as she concluded her speech (and the day’s proceedings – for me*) at the Global Atheist Convention she said, “Infidel is a label I now wear with pride and joy.”

On that, I think, we can all agree.

Chrys Stevenson

* I do have to apologise to my readers.  Richard Dawkins spoke after Ayaan Hirsi Ali but by then I was so tired I had to make a choice between staying to hear Dawkins or forgoing the Gala Dinner.  I have already heard Dawkins speak twice and so I made the difficult decision to choose a sleep and a bubble bath instead. Sorry Professor!

I heard that his speech was particularly good, so if someone has written it up, please let me know and I’ll link to it.  I’d make a poor war correspondent, wouldn’t I?

“Ooops, sorry, missed that battle, I fell asleep in the bath!”

Geoffrey Robertson

The hugely impressive Geoffrey Robertson gave the inaugural Christopher Hitchens Memorial Lecture at Melbourne’s 2012 Global Atheist Convention.

Laurence Leung introduced Robertson, assuring the ghost of Hitch that if he had, indeed, ended up in Hell as his critics predicted, Geoffrey could probably talk the sentence down to three months detention and a good behaviour bond.

Robertson took to the stage and opened with a disclosure, “I’m not actually an atheist … I’m a lawyer. I can argue both sides.”

Like many speakers he took the chance to take a poke at Pell.

“I hear that Pell believes atheists can go to Paradise. I don’t know about lawyers; God has to draw the line somewhere.”

I wondered, for a moment, whether Robertson was pinching his wife, Kathy Lette’s, material; or whether she might pinch his!

Robertson reminded us that Hitch was “like a small boy, pointing out the emperor had no clothes.”

His, was “a life spent puncturing the hypocrisy of others – including himself.”

Hitch was driven, said Robertson, by a ‘passion for justice’. He believed that criminals should face retribution now, rather than in hell or in the pages of history.

If you read nothing else of Christopher Hitchens’ great works, said Robertson, read “Chidhood’s End”, his Vanity Fair exposé of Ugandan, Joseph Kony of The Lord’s Resistance Army.  Read, said Robertson, about the support this monster receives from crazed evangelicals in the US.

It was Hitch, he reminded us, who came up with the idea of suing the Pope for crimes against humanity.

Robertson noted that here in Victoria, there have been [at least?] forty suicides in the past decade as a result of clerical abuse and the church’s failure to deal adequately with its victims. He urged the Baillieu government to institute a Royal Commission.  Immediately following the Convention, Baillieu announced a parliamentary inquiry into the matter – sadly not a Royal Commission, but a step forward, at least. One can only hope it will not be a bureaucratic whitewash. My friend, Rodney Chiang-Cruise reminded me at dinner last night of Sir Humphrey Appleby’s caution: “Never set up an inquiry unless you know in advance what its findings will be.”

Robertson challenged the legitimacy of allowing any religion to indoctrinate children at a very early age and convincing them that the priest had ‘supernatural’ powers. This has a powerful emotional and psychological effect on children, he said. When children’s awe of an infallible ‘superpowered’ authority figure is combined with the infantile celibates we call priests, it is a dangerous combination which too often leads to sexual and psychological abuse.

We must raise the age at which children are formally indoctrinated into their parents’ religion. The Vatican refuses to acknowledge this as a problem and, in fact, wants to lower the age of communion from seven to five.

Robertson said that the law should ban any formal induction until a child is at least 13 years of age.

The Catholic Church, says Robertson, blames everyone and everything but itself for clerical abuse: homosexual infiltration, aggressive secularism, the devil, Jewish journalists on the New York Times, even modernity!

And, the Australian taxpayer – that proverbial ‘mug’ – pays for Australia to have an embassy at the Vatican in addition to the embassy we already have in Italy. Even Ireland, said Robertson, has closed its Vatican embassy due to the deceitful behaviour of the Papal Nuncio, Archbishop Giuseppe Lazzarotto, expelled from Ireland – and sent where? To Australia!

Robertson opposes tax exemptions for religious institutions. While other worthy, secular organisations like Human Rights Watch cannot get exemption, religious institutions receive this privilege ‘as of right’. We need a Bill of Rights, said Robertson. Religious institutions should pay the going rate in corporations tax.  In the meantime, perhaps the Atheist Foundation of Australia should declare its belief in Christopher Hitchens.

It is notable that Robertson, one of the world’s leading lawyers, states unequivocally that the convention of saying prayers in the Australian parliament is unconstitutional. How good would it be if we could get pro-bono legal assistance to challenge this in the High Court! I do understand there are greater problems facing Australian society, but symbolically this would be an important victory and bring a great deal of attention to the other assaults on Australian secularism. ** (Please see clarification of this section in my comment below.)

Robertson reminded us how fortunate we are to be able to assert our disbelief without fear. Cruelty, he reminded us, faces atheists in many parts of the world. He spoke of the ‘atheophobia’ in many Muslim countries. (Atheophobia is a real word, Robertson assured us – “I checked it with Stephen Fry!”)

In places like Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Indonesia and Iran, he said, atheists risk imprisonment and death because they share our belief.

The problem in Iran, is grave.  In the late 80s, said Robertson, thousands of atheists were killed by the Ayatollah Khomeini. They were hung from cranes, four at a time – or shot by firing squad – and buried in mass graves. At least 7,000 atheists were killed – perhaps as many as 30,000. Their only crime, Robertson insists, was their atheism; although the Iranian government lies about this and tries to cover it up.

What is worse,most of the perpetrators of this atrocity are still alive and hold high positions in Iran’s government, including Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader; a man Hitch described as “a semi-literate megalomaniac”.

Robertson made the chilling prediction that Israel may stage a military strike on Iran before the year is out.

Meanwhile, the religious fanatics who lead Iran believe that nuclear war will create the kind of chaos that will bring the second coming of the 12th Imam. I hadn’t heard of the 12th Imam, so I did a little research.  Apparently:

“Critics of the Islamic Republic allege that Ahmadinejad and the supreme leader would even go so far as to hasten a nuclear showdown and cataclysmic strike — perhaps an attack on Israel and inevitable retaliation — to hasten the arrival of the 12th Imam. Ahmadinejad has even called for the reappearance of the 12th Imam from the podium of the United Nations General Assembly. During his speeches within Iran, Ahmadinejad has said that the main mission of the Islamic Revolution is to pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam.”

As Hitch said, “Religion poisons everything.”

“Hitch!” cried Robertson, “Where are you now? Looking down, perhaps from Cardinal Pell’s heaven?”

Hardly an achievement, Robertson reminded us, “If Mitt Romney dies he’ll get his own planet!”

“It’s a crazy world!” said Robertson. “Hitch tried to make it a saner place.”

Hitch is gone now and we know he’s not going to make a second coming. I guess if is work is to continue, it’s all up to us.

Chrys Stevenson

Lawrence Krauss

Take a pinch of nothing, some random particles, add gravity, quantum mechanics and a soupcon of quantum fluctuation and voila - your own universe - or croquembouche - or something tasty, anyway.

When I was a high school we had a horrible, grumpy science teacher called Mr Fendley.  Mr Fendley didn’t think girls should learn science and I was all too happy to co-operate with a teacher who preferred me to sit in the back of the class day-dreaming than working.

Result? While I topped the state in English, I got 2/100 for my last high school science exam. I recall looking at the paper, casually ticking a couple of multiple choice questions, then strolling nonchalantly out of the room, knowing it would be a completely wasted effort to continue.

I’ve tried to make up for it since, but I fear I have not caught up sufficiently to be able to do justice to the next GAC 2012 speaker, physicist, Laurence Krauss.

I was really looking forward to Krauss’s speech on how the universe could have just ‘appeared’ from nothing. I imagined my next debate with a fundamentalist.

“So,” they sneer, “how did the universe just ‘pop up’ out of nothing?”

And I’d look sickeningly superior and say, “Well, let me tell you ….”

Alas, I fear, that’s another fantasy I’ll never fulfill (that and bonking George Clooney or winning the Grand National like Velvet Brown).

I did try to be attentive. It’s not that he wasn’t interesting and engaging but by the time we got half way through my head was swimming and I’m afraid I rather nodded off.

I can remember thinking, as my chin hit my chest, “I’ll just have to buy the book.”

And that may have to be my advice to you, gentle reader!  I’m sure it’s a very good book, and I will be buying it myself.

It’s called, A Universe from Nothing.

But, I will not wimp out completely, I will try to give you some idea about what this fascinating (but ultimately soporofic) speech was all about.

The important point is that we now know enough about the physics of the universe to say that, theoretically, it is possible for a universe to pop into existence from nothing.

I take it this is roughly equivalent to me peering into the fridge at the end of the week and managing to produce dinner for two out of a couple of stale bits of cheese, a couple of glasses  of cask wine, a slightly brown bit of ageing garlic,  and a six day old bit of left-over French baguette.

Krauss promised to talk about this ‘complex subject’ in a way that even Cardinal Pell would understand.  Either he didn’t succeed or my IQ has dropped alarmingly since I was last tested – I was sure I was at least a little smarter than Pell!

(Krauss did comment that Pell was unique among men, having never thought deeply about anything in his life.)

OK, OK, Lawrence, I’ll buy the bloody book and I’ll think until there’s steam emanating from every orifice to make amends for falling asleep during your speech! OK?

Krauss explained that there are three different theories on what ‘shape’ the universe could be:  Open (i.e. able to expand outward forever), Closed (i.e. able to expand but then prone to contract into a ‘big crunch’), or Flat (in which the expansion will, eventually, slow down*).

Krauss said.we live in a flat universe and this knowledge provides us with the first inkling that something can come from nothing.

Seventy per cent of the energy of the universe, said Krauss, resides in nothing. They know this by weighing the universe.

Now, don’t ask me how they do that, but apparently they can, and when they find that the universe weighs a whole lot less than it should, .they know that 70 per cent is hiding away over there in ‘nothing’.  If only I could do that with 70 per cent of my weight – I could have appeared at the GAC 2012 dinner as a svelte size 10!

“Chrys! What happened to all that weight you were carrying?”

“Oh that? I lost it.”

“Well, good on you!”

“Oh, it was nothing!”

I’d love to tell you that I understand how this all works, but Lawrence has a booby-trap in every corner.

“If someone tells you they understand it,” he says, “they’re lying.”

Well, I’m telling you I don’t understand it, and I can assure you I’m definitely not lying!

The key point seemed to be that empty space – nothing – has energy. (Which is a lot more than I can say for me after three days at GAC 2012!)

We know from experiments that if you create a vacuum ‘virtual’ particles tend to pop in and out so fast you can’t see them, but they can be detected. (Please! Don’t ask me how!)

If you apply gravity, says Krauss, those particles can appear and stay with impunity.

The key point here seems to be that ‘nothing’ is unstable.

So somehow – perhaps in the same way that Adriana Zumbo makes that impossible croquembouche on Masterchef – combining gravity and quantum mechanics and mixing well allows space itself to appear from nothing. Smear on a little icing and you can have your very own universe for tea!

But, if you want to be very clever, add some quantum fluctuation and voila! You will have both space and time! Hardly more difficult than tempering chocolate, I would think.

That thundering sound you just heard is hoards of physicists leaving this blog in droves.

My abject apologies to Professor Krauss. I really was interested and just think, my inability to explain your speech coherently means that many more people will have to buy your book and make you even richer.  I really think I deserve some credit for that!

What’s that, Professor?  2/100 for the effort?  Well, it’s not like I’m unaccustomed to that kind of result for my efforts in science.

*That’s what I have in my notes, but later he said the expansion was speeding up, not slowing down.  Oh dear! My head hurts. Quick, someone pass me another wine!

Chrys Stevenson

MC Lawrence Leung was having fun watching the ‘twitter wars’ between competing hashtags #GAC2012 and #atheistcon. He was a bit concerned, however, that some atheists insist on spelling the word ‘athiest’.

He offered a handy reminder: “Remember, i before e … except if there’s no god.”

AC Grayling

British philosopher, AC Grayling was next to take to the stage. I met Grayling at GAC 2010 and found him to be a very charming, affable and kind-hearted man. It’s nice to meet people you admire and find they not only live up to, but exceed expectations.

During the convention a friend of mind (not mentioning any names, Geoff Cowan) asked Grayling whether conditioner was the secret to his beautiful mane of long gray hair.

“No, I don’t use it,” he said, eyeing off Geoff’s balding head, “and I see you don’t either.” Touché!

Grayling’s speech was titled, “What next for atheism?”

His was an optimistic view. Generally, he believes things are trending in a positive direction; that increasingly, more people are coming to think they might be atheists.

What does history tell us about the present phenomena?

Grayling looked back to the 16th century after the Reformation, the 18th century Enlightenment and the 19th century after Darwin and the rise of Biblical criticism in Germany and suggested that then, as now, the Catholic church fought back bitterly against this assault on its power and influence.  In fact, he said, the church ‘fought back like a cornered animal’ – just as it is doing now.  This has to be a good sign that we’re making a positive impact!

The result of such movements, said Grayling, is that a lot of people are motivated into activism – either ‘for’ or ‘against’.  The contemporary  ‘culture wars’ can be understood in the context of these other social revolutions.

As social progressives we need to capitalise on the positive momentum that has been created by a greater awareness of atheism and secularism. But what should we DO?

1. We need to engage in metaphysical debates about the nature of the universe we occupy. We need to consider the question of ‘supernatural agencies’ with rationality and evidence.

Children, said Grayling, are credulous for good evolutionary reasons. It is important for a child to believe an adult is telling the truth when they say, “Don’t eat that berry, it’s poisonous” or “Don’t stand too close to the edge of the cliff, you might fall off”.

Religion puts both children and adults into this credulous state and is assisted by powerful, social reinforcement. It’s taken by our governments, for example, that the advancement of religion is a ‘good thing’, worthy of tax exemptions!

But, said Grayling, we need to get people – both adults and children – to start thinking critically and rationally about religion.

We need people to know more about the origins and history of religion.

We need people to look at the fruits of religion? How do nations fare under religious governments?

Churches are anxious to obscure upleasant facts about the past; historical ‘amnesia’ is useful to them.

We are termed ‘militant’ atheists, but what was once the church’s response to those who challenged it? It burned people at the stake. What do atheists do? We just ask questions.

Grayling reminded us of a quote from Thomas Huxley (known as Darwin’s bulldog):

“Bishops are like pigs. If you poke one, they all squeal.”

Religions are ‘slippery’ said Grayling. When the weight of criticism becomes to great, they shift to avoid it; they keep shifting the goal posts.

His comment reminded me of the Mormon church which banned African-Americans from its American universities, until the government told them that unless they changed their policy, public funding would cease. As if by magic, the head of the Mormon Church received a revelation that God had changed his mind about admitting African-Americans, and the funding was retained. Incredible!

2. We need to talk about secularism and consider where the religious voice is positioned in the public debate.

Separation of church and state needs to be a matter of public policy. We need to explain that it is NOT a threat to freedom of religion. Grayling noted that while the religious obviously have a right to be heard in the public square, religions currently have a massively inflated presence when one considers the actual number of active adherents. We need to speak out against this over-representation.

Tax-payers money should not be spent on  socially divisive, faith-based schools. There is a two-word argument against this, said Grayling: Northern Ireland.

Neither should public money be spent on religion, to support religious groups or the advancement of religion. Religions are corporations. Like trade unions, they are self-interested lobby groups. We need to make them see themselves for what they are. We need to vehemently oppose their consistent message, “We don’t like it, so you mustn’t do it.”

And, most importantly, said Grayling, religious institutions should not be allowed to proselytise to children.

We need to significantly diminish the presence of religion in the public square because most people are functionally secular. Religious views are not representative of the majority view of most Western nations.

3. We need to start a debate about the ‘humanist’ view of ethics and talk about how, as atheists, we live our lives ethically.

David Hume talked about the subjective nature of beauty – that nothing is intrinsically beautiful – beauty is a attribute we assign to things. Grayling tends to disagree, arguing that there are some things like love and compassion which are intrinsically beautiful; things we should nurture and celebrate.

Things ARE getting better, says Grayling. There is a powerful trend running through history driving us to take back possession of the positive aspects of humanity. And, he insists, these positive aspects are not expressed only through religion.

So, what do we need to DO?

We need to challenge the claims of religion. We need to challenge their version of history and their versions of their own histories. We need to point to the man-made origins of religion. When the religious make impenetrable statements (what Dennett might call ‘deepity’) we need to keep asking, “What do you MEAN by that?”  And we need to challenge their representativeness – their right to hold the power in society they currently claim ‘as of right’.

And, says Grayling, we need to show that living our lives for ‘good’ does not require a belief in the supernatural.

Chrys Stevenson

Daniel Dennett

Lawrence Leung was a wonderful convention MC (along with Kylie Sturgess) providing some memorable ‘zingers’. But, when he introduced the great Daniel Dennett it was Dennett’s humour that was highlighted.

Lawrence said he’d been chatting to Dennett in the green room and Dennett mentioned that he got most of his best ideas while he’s in the shower. That seems to work for him, because when his wife complains he’s spending too long in the shower, he replies, “Honey, I’m WORKING!”

Dennett’s convention speech was titled “How to tell if you’re an atheist”.  He believes that there are many, many people who don’t believe in God who, nevertheless, don’t recognise themselves as atheists.  He likened this to a very rare form of anosognosia, called Anton’s Syndrome. People with Anton’s Syndrome have gone blind through some accident, illness or trauma but don’t know that they’re blind and deny it when told this is the case. These people aren’t stupid or insane, said Dennett, Anton’s Syndrome is a brain disorder.

Atheism denial, he said, is a much more common affliction.

Dennett spoke, for instance of the phenomenon of clergy who no longer believe but would never, in a million years, call themselves atheists. He referred to his 2010 article in Evolutionary Psychology (with LaScola), “Preachers who are not believers“.

He said that ‘atheist’ had come to have a terrible connotation and that even people who are happy to concede their non-belief are at pains to say they’re not atheists!

Dennett pointed to a survey undertaken by the Richard Dawkins foundation and reported in the New Statesman, based on the UK’s Census. The 2001n Census found that 70 per cent of Britons identified as Christians. This was much celebrated and exploited  by church leaders. In the aftermath of the 2011 Census – prior to figures being released – the Richard Dawkins Foundation commissioned an independent survey and found that it was likely this figure had dropped from 72 per cent to around 54 per cent. Significant in itself.

But, as the advertorial salesman would say, “Wait! There’s more!”

The survey showed that, of that 54 per cent who identified as ‘Christian’, half had not  attended a church service in the previous year, 16 per cent hadn’t done so for at least ten years and 12 per cent had never been to church.  Further, only 44 per cent believed that Jesus is the son of God!

This kind of study highlights how misleading the Census is in terms of religion. It shows how ridiculous the Australian Christian Lobby is when it uses the Census figures to suggest that Australia is a ‘Christian’ nation.

Dennett admitted that he was speaking to ‘two audiences’ at the GAC – ‘US’ and those who are curious about us.  It seemed to work. I was speaking to one liberal Christian later who said he’d come intending to be a ‘unbiased observer’ but found himself, throughout, mentally punching the air and shouting “Yes!”.

“I am THIS close to joining you guys,” he said.

So, said Dennett, you MIGHT be an atheist if you are reflective enough to be curious about us, or afraid to listen because of what you might learn about yourself.

“Do you believe Jesus is the son of God?” asked Dennett.

“Do you believe God literally listens to prayers and intervenes?”

“Do you believe God is on ‘our’ side, in war? In ball games?”

If not, you MAY just be an atheist.

Dennett conceded that many would respond, “We don’t believe in that nonsense, but we do believe in ‘something divine’ – a benign force …”

He produced a photo of Yoda on the screen.

Star Wars was a fantasy he reminded the ‘undecided’ in the audience.

Dennett told a story about appearing on American radio. The interviewer was incredulous at Dennett’s claim to atheism.

“You mean, you don’t believe there is a force that directs our lives? A force that protects us?” said the reporter, aghast.

“Well, yes, I do, I do believe in such a force,” said Dennett mischievously, “I call it gravity.”

If you believe that God is a ‘concept’ that ‘inspires’ people, said Dennett, you’re an atheist. God is NOT a concept. The CONCEPT of God is a concept!

Dennett moved on to explain a term he has coined – deepity.  Deepity refers to an apparently profound observation that is ambiguous; it is either (or at the same time) obviously false, or trivially true.  An example might be, “Love is just a word”.

“Love is not a word,” said Dennett, with a twinkle in his eye, “You can’t find love in a dictionary!” (Think about it!)

Dennett agrees that the concept of god helps some people to lead better lives but, he insists, there are better ways.

Dennett was also keen to promote the Clergy Project mentioned previously by Dan Barker. The Clergy Project has been initiated to help clergy who no longer believe to move beyond their faith. Dennett noted that the privacy of those who sign up to the Clergy Project is closely protected. Not just anyone can join. You actually have to provide your clerical credentials and have them checked out.

As Dan Barker mentioned, 200 have signed up to the Clergy Project, 50 still actively preaching. But, said Dennett, he’s been told by one clergyman that if the project can raise sufficient funds to offer job retraining the project would have “10,000 new members tomorrow”.

Church leaders all know this is true, said Dennett, but nobody knows exactly how big the problem is. Clergymen, it seems, are losing their faith in droves.  Atheist clergy are often isolated – they don’t dare admit their loss of faith to their family or to other clergy. In fact, Dennett told the story of one man who had confided in his best friend, a member of his congregation. He promptly found his confidence betrayed and he was fired from his job.

Atheist clergy, said Dennett, are like gays in the 1950s – but without gaydar. It’s very hard for them to find each other for help and support. The Clergy Project hopes to remedy that.

Dennett, however, had a suggestion as to how to spot an atheist clergyman. The ones out playing golf still believe he said. The ones working hard to tend to the poor are those who have probably lost their faith and are working hard to atone for their hypocrisy.

It’s hard, said Dennett, to really know what anyone really believes. What they profess publicly may not be what they believe privately. And if they profess to believe, for instance, in the resurrection of Jesus – do they mean they literally believe or in some kind of metaphorical sense?

Religious belief, says Dennett, seems to have made an evolutionary adaptation and survives by being impenetrable.

“Religions thrive in an environment of ignorance.”

However, he said, the new transparency of information has brought a drastic change to the selective environment inhabited by religions. They will either have to adapt very quickly or go extinct.

So, how do you ‘deconvert’ someone? Dennett advises against confrontation. Instead, he advocates gentle exposure to mountains of facts, casually dropped into conversations. We should speak of God as we speak of Santa Claus; with the assumption that all grown up people realise he’s not real.

Chrys Stevenson

Dan Barker – Freedom from Religion Foundation

I love listening to Dan Barker’s  and Annie Laurie Gaylor’s Freethought Radio podcast, and I loved Dan Barker’s book, Godless,  so it was great to see him on stage again at GAC 2012.

As I keep droning on about the threat of Christian dominionism in this country I was heartened when Dan opened with the comment, “The religious right does want to take over – don’t let them do it!”

Like Leslie Cannold, Dan was keen for us to know about Vashti McCollum’s fight for a secular education for her children.  He recommended her book, One Woman’s Fight. It’s confronting to think that what Vashti McCollum was fighting for in America in 1953 is essentially the same thing that Ron Williams is fighting for here in Australia in 2011.  Why has it taken over 50 years for Australia to recognise the importance of a secular public education system for our children!

As a former minister, Dan Barker has a particular interest in clergy who have lost their faith.  He told us that thousands and thousands of ministers, priests and clergy find that, having learned ‘too much’, they are struggling with their faith.  Together with others he has started the Clergy Project ‘a confidential online community for active and former clergy who [no longer] hold supernatural beliefs.”

The project launched just last month and already more than 200 clergy have signed up, including 50 who are still actively working as clergy.

There are many people still preaching, says Dan, who no longer believe.  The aim is to help and support atheist clergy and, in the future, assist them with retraining.

Dan announced that his next book will be called The Good Atheist. He said that, in response to Rick Warren’s The Purpose Driven Life, he had wanted to call it The Life Driven Purpose. The World, Dan explained, has been enriched by the contributions of good atheists. He wants to give them credit.

Despite his early life as an evangelist, Dan now sees God as a slave master. He noted that the posture of people in prayer – on their knees, head bowed – is that of a subservient slave before their master and the position of the hands during prayer echoes a slave’s hands in shackles.  Atheists, said Dan, are revolting against the slave master.

Dan made a brilliant analogy about God’s ‘good news’, darwing on John 3:16. He suggested that we imagine one of our neighbours standing out on the street each morning as we pass by entreating us to come and hear his ‘good news’.  For days we ignore him, but at last we decide to listen to what he has to say.

“I have good news for you,” says the neighbour, “You don’t have to go down in my basement torture chamber!”

“Really?”

“Yes! I was going to send you down there, but instead I sent my son down there, and that satisfied my anger, so now you don’t have to go. So now, if you just say thank you to my son we can all go and live up in my attic forever.”

“What would you do?” asked Dan. Take up the offer, or would you just keep on walking?

Dan drew a similar analogy about God’s torture of Job (Job 2:3). Anyone who would do what God did to Job, he said, is a moral monster. It was, said Dan, the original “the devil made me do it” excuse.

Morning Tea

After Dan’s talk we broke for morning tea. What a bun rush! At morning tea I saw Steve Payne who seems to be perfecting omnipresence. Also great to catch up with Deb (@Tradrmum) and Jeannie Dare who’s generously offered to give me a lift to the airport on Thursday. Coffee and biscuits are great sustenance but the best reviver was a big hug from the lovely Mikey Bear, Michael Barnett.

Panel Discussion

A panel discussion was next on the programme. Radio presenter, Derek Guille, was the moderator with a panel comprised of:  former St Kilda Mayor and secular Jew, Dick Gross; Victorian Greens MP Colleen Hartland; academic Marion Maddox, author of God under Howard; and leader of the Australian Sex Party, Fiona Patten.

I was surprised to see Dick Gross get a guernsey because he was downright rude about the 2010 GAC and I don’t know that he added much to the panel discussion. I spoke to Jane Caro later and she was raging that neither Dick nor Colleen seemed to understand the gravity of the government funding religious schools to the detriment of the impoverished state system.

On this ‘vexed issue’, Gross said he wasn’t really concerned about it, although he conceded that education in Australia is critically underfunded. Gross didn’t think we had a large creationist movement in Australia but said that if schools were found to be teaching creationism, it should be grounds for the withdrawal of government funding.

Hartland agreed. She was more concerned about religious instruction in schools, arguing that it was about recruitment and should only occur outside the state system.

By this stage steam was coming out of Marion Maddox’s ears (perhaps she was channelling Jane Caro!). Marion accused Dick and Colleen of being ‘wish washy’, reminding them that the government gives more money to some religious schools than it gives to state schools.  These religious schools, said Maddox, are getting away with substantially amended curricula which expunge certain concepts and words from science and English in deference to religious sensibilities. In some schools there are even exemptions which allow for corporal punishment – an abuse which is outlawed in all other schools. The aim of these schools, said Maddox, is for children to be soldiers of the Lord ready to take on the enemies of the Lord and their dominions. Yet another voice of support for my claim that dominionism is alive and well in Australia!

Maddox disagreed that Australia didn’t have much of a creationist movement. There’s a strong creationist movement here, she said.

Maddox is not an atheist. She’s a Christian and a theologian. And yet, of all the panel members it was she who argued most strongly for an equitable and robust state education system which is free, compulsory and secular – just as our founders intended.

In response to what can only be described as an outraged rant by Maddox, Fiona Patten turned to her and said, “I didn’t realise it, but I love you!”

Fiona said that she strongly disagreed with religious schools being exempted from anti-discrimination laws. She also said she was looking forward to the outcome of Ron Williams’ High Court Challenge to the National School Chaplaincy Program.

There was general agreement on the panel that, if religion is to be taught in schools at all, it should be as an academic subject taught by qualified teachers, not by ‘good-hearted volunteers’.

Marion Maddox noted that PhD student, Cathy Byrne is researching in this area and has found that Australia is way behind in the way we do religious education. It should be academic and it should include a wide range of world-views, including atheism.  My notes for this part of the discussion note that “MM is in full flight”. She was, frankly, magnificent in defence our secular education. Had Ron Williams been there I’m sure he would have been standing on his chair cheering her on.

Fiona Patten agreed wholeheartedly with Maddox.

“We don’t need volunteers teaching in state schools. State schools should be funded well enough so we don’t need volunteers.”

Gross was concerned, however, that funding a cohort of religious education teachers would be unduly costly – especially in a system where we so badly need teachers of science and maths. Is it really that important to teach kids about religion at all, asked Gross?  There are more important things.

“I’d choose sex education over religion any day,” Fiona Patten piped up, causing much laughter from the audience.

Maddox took the proposition seriously, however, noting that in many European countries where education is properly funded, children receive the benefit of both sex and religious education.

Same-sex marriage was the next topic for discussion.  Dick Gross noted that the government does need to regulate marriage because marriage is ‘messy’ – it involves money and violence and the government needs to have some form of control.  However, he does support same-sex marriage and saw his failure to push it through during his term in politics as one of his failures.

Fiona Patten felt that the religious wanted a ‘prohibition on pleasure’.

“They just don’t like people having fun!” she said.

But Marion Maddox reminded us that many Christians are far more moderate than the noisy fundamentalists and share our views on many of these issues.  We need to build coalitions with them, she said. The Australian Christian Lobby does not speak for Australian Christians.

Maddox said that although the ACL talks as if it is a peak body, it is a private company with no organisational members.

“I’d bet its constituency is smaller than the number of people in this room,” she said.

Maddox noted that statistics consistently show that most Christians support same-sex marriage and abortion.

Dick Gross jumped on one of my hobby horses in criticising the moderate churches for not being more vocal in condemning the ACL and distancing themselves from its extremist views.

Maddox said that many were trying but their media releases weren’t being picked up. I’m not sure I completely buy that excuse.  There was plenty of publicity when the Victorian Council of Churches issued a statement against the ACL last year. Let these other moderates stand up and be counted.

Greens MP, Colleen Hartland said that politicians were wrong to be frightened of ‘rocking the boat’ by supporting progressive issues.

Marion Maddox noted that, contrary to what the ACL would have politicians believe, people in churches don’t generally vote as a block.

“I’m winning on the strength of my support for those issues,” she said. The electorate is ‘for’ these things, not against them. Politicians are far too scared of these lobbying organisations. They need to listen more to the people.

“I don’t find the Australian Christian Lobby powerful,” she said, “I think they’re pretty pathetic.”

Former politician, Dick Gross said that, politically, we have to learn how to leverage off minority positions. We need to consider that we have quite a lot of power.  He agreed that Christianity needs to ‘own up’ to its outliers. To name them and distance itself from them – just as atheists need to do the same with those who claim to (but don’t) speak for our community.

Chrys Stevenson