Alabama Christian Governor: Do Politicians Have a Right to be Prejudiced?

Do politicians have a right to hold beliefs that are offensive to modern society? Do they have a right to espouse those beliefs in public? Should they be held to a higher standard than the rest of us?

Robert J. Bentley, the newly-elected governor of Alabama, is "raising eyebrows" according to the LA Times.

"If you're a Christian and you're saved ... it makes you and me brother and sister. Now I will have to say that, if we don't have the same daddy, we're not brothers and sisters. So anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I'm telling you, you're not my brother and you're not my sister ..."

The governor made these remarks in church, not during his official duties as the state's governor. Does that make it OK?

I don't think so. Governor Bentley abused the power of his office, plain and simple. He used the State of Alabama to promote Christianity. It may not be illegal, but it certainly is unethical. The governor should be ashamed of himself.

Governor Bentley has a duty to represent all of the citizens of Alabama: people of all faiths and no faith, people of

Doing What's Right Even When it's Hard

It's really easy to be moral, ethical, kind and generous when everything is going well. When life is good, it's easy to be charitable. When you have plenty of money and you make a mistake, it's easy to make it right.

The real test of character isn't how you handle yourself when times are good. It's whether you can keep up your principles when life sucks. When you make a promise in times of plenty, do you keep it later on when times have turned tough? If you make a mistake when you're broke, do you make it right even though it's not easy?

It seems like every time I turn around these days, yet another pastor, bishop or pope is making the wrong choices, showing that when the chips are down, their morality was a mere facade. Rather than having the deep, solid morality that we expected from these pillars of the religious community, they've shown that their morals are shallow. Rather than deeply held principles, they have situational ethics.

The Pope's cover-up of the pedophilia scandal, which CNN has exposed even more last week, showed us that when the Roman Catholic Church was faced with protecting its children or itself, it abandoned the children. The truly honest response would have been full disclosure, the very day the first pedophile priest was caught.

It seems that every time Congressmen, Senators or Presidents are caught with their pants down, instead of honestly admitting his mistake, their first response is to deny it happened. Rather than being honest, they rationalize and lie.

When BP's oil well blew up, their first response was to pretend it wasn't all that serious, that the leak was something like ten percent of the actual flow. A truly honest response would have been to say, "We don't know, but we'll find out. It looks bad," and then get to work to fix the problem and let their scientists speak without censorship.

Where do these people learn their morals? In church? I only went to church a few times in my youth,

Woman Preacher Gets Southern Baptist Church Expelled

It's hard to believe in these modern times that there is still overt, legal discrimination against women. But leave it to religion to be in the dark ages when everyone else has seen the light. The Druid Hills Baptist Church, a thriving Southern Baptist congregation in Atlanta, Georgia, has been declared "not a cooperating church" because its associate pastor is a woman (*gasp*!).

The official policy of the Southern Baptist Convention is that the role of pastor is "limited to men as qualified by Scripture."

Yeah, that's the right idea! Let's take the morals of a bunch of farmers, goatherds and rabbis who lived two thousand years ago, and decide that by golly, they got it right!

AMA Tells the Government Off about Gays

Today's headline, "AMA: Government Policies Hazardous to Gay Health," illustrates perfectly the difference between religion and science. Religion is harming and killing people with its two-thousand-year-old morality leftover from tribes that were wandering around in the Middle Eastern deserts, whereas science is trying to prevent deaths and make people happier and healthier.

The American Medical Association, the nation's largest group of doctors, adopted a resolution at their bi-annual meeting in Houston yesterday, which states unambiguously that the government's policies are harmful to gays.

First, the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy means that gays can't talk about medical issues with their doctor, because doctors are required to report a gay man to superior officers. That's bad for the patient, and violates a doctor's duty to keep patients' medical information private. And second, bans on same-sex marriage leads to health-care disparities. Gay couples become second-class citizens when it comes to their health.

It's hypocritical when conservative and evangelical religious people claim to "hate the sin, but love the sinner," yet their actual politics harms and kills people. Those who deny equal rights to same-sex couples are showing their true colors: they are bigoted and hateful, plain and simple. Anyone who would deny health care to another human, regardless of that person's sexual orientation (or sex, or religion, or color, or ...), is not a moral person.

Science, by contrast, has proved again and again its inherent morality. (And I include progressive religious people when I say "science.") Down through the ages, virtually every advance in the human condition has been through the hard work of scientists, not popes, priests, rabbis, or clerics. At just about every turn, scientists have met resistance, and even persecution, at the hands of the conservative religious zealots. In spite of this, scientists have pushed forward. They learned about human anatomy, discovered that microbes are responsible for disease, discovered evolution and how it is the foundation of our immune systems, invented thousands of drugs, and helped guide politicians to set sensible health policies.

The AMA's resolution is a breath of fresh air in the national debate about gay rights, and is yet another step forward by science, pushing back the dark immorality of the religious right.

Catholics: Arrogant but not Hypocrites

I've always been of a split mind about Catholics. On the one hand, the Catholic religion is really quite odd by Christian standards, with its saints, idols, the Holy Trinity, and so forth – it's really got a lot of hints of polytheism and paganism in it compared to most Christian religions.

On the other hand, I really admire the Catholic chutzpah. Unlike most Christian denominations, they frankly reject the Bible as an inerrant authority about Christ and God, and say, "We know the real truth, because ... well, ... just because!" They claim to simply know the answers, because their church was founded by Jesus himself (so they say), and they've somehow passed that wisdom directly and unerringly down for 2000 years.

You have to admire that sort of unmitigated confidence. Other Christian denominations have to go to the Bible for their understanding of God and Christ, and sadly, the Bible has so many inconsistencies that it's resulted in thousands of different branches of Christianity, each with its own spin on God, morality, the afterlife, heaven and hell, original sin ... on and on. If it's in the Bible, Christians find a way to disagree about it.

But not the Catholics. If there's a disagreement about something, the Catholics are right! End of debate! What could be simpler?

So, while I may not agree with Catholic morality (in fact I vehemently disagree with it), I admire their lack of hypocrisy (regular readers know how much I dislike hypocrisy, or here). Unlike those who hide behind "biblical inerrancy" even though there are obvious contradictions that anyone can see, the Catholics make no such claims about the Bible. They admit that it has errors, that much of it is metaphorical and mythical, and that it is supposed to be used to teach, not as a history of the world. When it comes to spiritual truths, they simply claim to know. And how can that be hypocritical?

That's not to say there aren't Catholics who don't follow Catholic doctrine, witness the flood of priestly immorality. But I'm talking about the Church's overall philosophy, not the failures of individual Catholics.

It's too bad more religions can't just use this simple directness: "We're right, because God told us!" It's simple, it's direct, and it's pretty much the truth.

Slavery and Child Trafficking in Ireland?

What do President George H. W. Bush's chief legal counsel, a baby who was stolen from his mother and sold for profit, and a tormented gay man who suffered from depression and died of AIDS, have in common?

They're all the same man.

Few stories get me as angry as those about slavery and selling children for profit. And although today's story isn't as black and white as many such stories, the shocking part is that it took place in Ireland in the 1950's, and the perpetrators were Catholic Nuns. And in case you're thinking, "OK, just another another overblown exaggeration," think again.

Our story starts in 1952, when Philomena Lee, a young Irish lass of 18 years, became pregnant. Philomena's mother died when she was just six herself, and the nuns raised her. At age 18, she knew nothing of men and the facts of life, and became intimate with a handsome young man she met at the county fair. So far, an all-too-common story, yet hardly shocking.

But for young Philomena, the shame of her pregnancy was nothing compared to what came next. The Catholic Church was so powerful that the Irish government had abandoned its duty, and handed over responsibility – and unchecked legal authority – of all unwed mothers and their babies to the Church. The Catholic Church took full control of these young women, imprisoned them in nunneries, and managed to block all legal interference from the government.

The Church started running it as a money-making business, taking money from the government, while at the same time selling the babies for profit to wealthy Catholic couples in Great Britain and America, even against the mothers' direct objections and refusals.

And the profits didn't stop with the babies. Their mothers were kept in the convent as slaves, forced to work in gardens, kitchens, nurseries or light manufacturing, unless they or their families could buy their freedom at a cost £100, a substantial sum in those days which many couldn't afford. It was slavery, plain and simple.

Philomena's baby became Michael Hess, a chief architect of the Republican National Convention's election strategy, whose brilliant work ultimately won the presidency for George H.W. Bush (senior), and for which he was appointed Bush's chief legal counsel. But unfortunately for Michael, he was also a gay man in a political party that didn't put up with homosexuality. Mike ultimately got AIDS, and died.

But even more tragically, both Philomena and Michael were trying desperately to find each other, to reconnect. Each of them went to the convent, and begged to be introduced, mother and son. Michael probably passed within a few miles of his mother. Yet, the Catholic nuns inexplicably refused, in spite of the earnest appeals of everyone involved. Michael died without ever getting to see his mother again, and Philomena never got to see the man that her little boy had become after he was forcibly taken from her and sold.

My summary barely does justice to this appalling story. I hope you'll read the full story, beautifully and tragically written by Martin Sixsmith of The Guardian.

Those who would claim that without religion, there can be no morality (which is the Roman Catholic Church's official position), need only look at deeds such as these to see that even with religion, morality is difficult to find.

Is it OK for your Doctor to Proselytize?

When is it ok to use business to spread your religion? Is it OK for your butcher to recommend chapters of the Bible? For your mechanic to leave Jehovah's Witness literature around the waiting room and press one into your hands as you leave? Is it OK for your doctor to tell you that accepting Christ as your savior would help you heal?

This is not an academic question to a friend of mine. We were on the topic of religion and my upcoming book, and got to the Proselyzation Meme, which brought forth a story. She faced a series of reconstructive surgeries after an illness, and her HMO offered just one surgeon in that specialty. The good news was that her surgeon was one of the best, and did an excellent job. But ... the surgeon's waiting room was filled with religious books and magazines, she sold childrens' Bible stories in her lobby, and the same literature graced the examining rooms and the doctor's own office. Every time my friend was going through particularly difficult times, the doctor would remind her that Jesus could help, if she'd only let him into her heart.

I don't know about you, but in my book it is unethical for any doctor to mix religion and medicine, especially one in an HMO where the patient is "captive" and can't choose.

A butcher or mechanic? Sure. I can easily take my business elsewhere (or more likely, I'd continue to patronize them and offer them my views!), and as private citizens, they have a right to operate their businesses any way they like. But not doctors. Doctors are supposed to offer tolerance, impartiality, and acceptance of all lifestyles to their patients. When we visit, we have to know that we can talk about anything to our doctor without fear of judgement, condescension or disapproval.

What if, for example, a cheating spouse feared he/she had caught a sexually transmitted disease, and was afraid to ask an overtly proselytizing doctor to be tested, for fear of being judged? The consequences could be fatal to his/her marriage partner.

If Christians, or a member of any other faith, feel that saving my soul is so important that they must share and spread their beliefs, fine, that's their right. But, they shouldn't become doctors if they can't put their proselytizing aside during business hours. Being a doctor implies treating all of your patients impartially, sticking to medicine, and keeping your morals and beliefs to yourself. Opinions and advice should be strictly medical and psychological.

Scientology Causes Schizophrenic Teen's Death

As someone who deals with mental illness in my home daily, this article infuriated me. According to the story, a Scientologist father convinced his schizophrenic son to stop taking his medications, AND he placed a loaded gun on the teenage boy's nightstand. Not surprisingly, with the sudden withdrawal the anti-depressants, the young man's voices began tormenting him again, and the boy killed himself.

Anyone who lives with a person afflicted with schizophrenia knows what a terrible affliction it is. The victims are often terrorized by voices, running 24/7, that are so realistic, so convincing, that they lose track of reality. They believe these are real people. And these voices are not nice – often they're yelling, saying horrible, insulting, or degrading things to the patient. All day long.

Schizophrenia is not something that these patients make up. They don't just feel a little bit off, or unhappy. They can be completely incapacitated by fear from the unrelenting voices that yell at them, curse them, or just whisper awful things to them, day after day, year after year.

Getting back to Scientology, they are flat out WRONG about the causes of schizophrenia. It is not a matter of poor diet, or "allergies," or of psychiatrists getting patients addicted to drugs they don't need. Schizophrenia is a terrible disease. Nobody knows the cause. Nobody knows the cure.

Scientologists, in my opinion, are acting immorally and irresponsibly when they, with no scientific or medical training, diagnose illnesses, contradict the best scientific and medical advice available, and convince a patient to stop following the doctor's prescribed treatment plan.

Only a religious group could get away with such immoral and outrageous behavior.

Modern medicine doesn't have all the answers, but in this case, I can say from first-hand personal experience, as well as a thirty-year career working with some of the finest medical researchers in the world, that Scientology is wrong. And in the case of this teen who shot himself, they're dead wrong.

As far as I can tell, Scientology has always been, and continues to be, a destructive religion. It was a complete fraud, perpetrated by founder Hubbard, from day one, and it's disgraceful that so many have fallen into its grip. I hope those responsible, directly and indirectly, for this young man's death will be punished. Unfortunately, the reality is that they'll probably get a "Get out of Jail Free" card, because their quackery was done in the name of religion. They can make any wild-ass claims they like, and the government can't stop them. Even if someone dies.

I can understand many things, but Scientology's stance on psychiatry and mental illness is beyond belief, beyond rationality. It's just cruel.

Tags: scientology schizophrenia medicine religion morals atheism

Hucksters for Christ

I've been neglecting my blog this week, but for a good reason – my book, The Religion Virus, was taken on by a publisher! It's very exciting, but now I have lots of work to do. Like getting back to this blog, and what better than a vigorous debate among friends?

Hemant Mehta poses a classic dilemma in ethics over at his blog, The Friendly Atheist: If you could make money by tricking Christians into buying fake Christian stuff, but then donated the proceeds to a charity (one that even Christians would approve), would you do it? Vjack gives a good summary of the ethical choices on his blog, Atheist Revolution.

I found this fascinating because I encountered something similar in real life, bit of a tangent to Hemant's dilemma: They just take the money and run. In this case, it's a Christian book publisher.

A high-school friend of my wife is a very born-again Christian, completely committed to Christ in every way. Even her casual correspondence with my wife (who the friend knows is Jewish) seems to contain a reference to Jesus in every other sentence. Jesus seems to guide her and shape her life on a daily and hourly basis.

This friend decided to write a children's book, a quasi-parable or something, about Jesus. The one-sentence description was enough to ensure that I never read the book. But back to my point: Not surprisingly, she couldn't get a mainstream publisher, so turned to "POD" (publish-on-demand) publishers, which typically charge the author anywhere from $200 to $800 to have the book printed. But this friend found a Christian POD company, one that appealed to both the author's Christianity and to the author's vanity.

The price? $5000! More than ten times the average for POD. Moreover, this Christian company led her to believe that they'd get her into bookstores, on Amazon, with book signings at stores, and big sales and profits. This is completely bogus; not even traditional publishers promise this, and no POD company can guarantee this sort of reception for an author.

"But wait!" you might say. "Maybe the book was really good!" So my wife decided to check this company out. She sent them this ridiculous email:

[My book] is a unique blend of science fiction with spirituality. It is about a group of humanoid aliens (called Godonauts) from another solar system who arrive on earth to bring the word of Christ the Savior. They reveal that Christ has spent the last two thousand years spreading his divine word to other planets and other solar systems. Their civilization is more evolved because everyone is united in their pure love and conviction in Christ the Lord. There is no war, no hatred, no poverty, and no sin. At first they are not believed. Looking just like humans, no one even believes they are even alien. But they demonstrate their unique affinity with Christ by recreating his miracles - walking on water, turning water to wine, etc. They are invited to appear on a competitive reality show about magicians, and it is on live national TV that they finally perform a miracle so huge, that the hearts of everyone on earth open to receive the pure cleansing love of Christ. I do not want to reveal the full details of the miracle, except that it involves Jesus making a special appearance singing 'Amazing Grace'. Around the world soldiers lay down their arms and embrace their enemies. World leaders deactivate their hidden nuclear weapons. Mass baptisms take place in every country and nation, and it seems as though Christ's mission is finally achieved. But ... peace and salvation do not last for long, as Satan's Warriors have been stockpiling nuclear weapons on another nearby planet called Zolton. When the Zoltonites discover that the Godonauts have erased all sin from earth, they resort to their most drastic and devastating tactic - to resurrect Eve via a unique DNA cloning technique, and to send her to earth with a deadly Apple of Temptation that will not only bring about the total downfall of all mankind, but will ruin everyone's chances of salvation and an afterlife. In the exciting climax, Jesus pilots a fighter space jet and with the help of a small cache of true-hearted Christians, meets the Zoltonites head on. Hasta la Vista, Zoltonites. The novel is 800 pages, and I have been told by my mother, pastor, and creative writing teacher at Divine Purity College that it is quite good. I am currently working on the screenplay adaptation. I envision Harrison Ford playing Jesus, Madonna playing Cloned Eve, and Mel Gibson playing the leader of the Godonauts. It is only through my belief in Jesus our Lord and Savior that I was able to write and complete this book. I belief it has the potential to both inspire and entertain. Thank you for your consideration.

Guess what? In spite of the fact that this was comical on the face of it, and plainly not a book that would sell, this "Christian" publisher's rep wrote back to express their interest in this project. Their main concerns?

• The book was "too long" at 800 pages (Duh!), and had to be edited down to 600 pages (or possibly split into 2-3 volumes)
• The Zolton's evil plan to "ruin everyone's chances at salvation" was contrary to the publisher's statement of belief.

Note that there was nothing in there like, "This sounds like a pile of crap," or, "Are you nuts?"

So, to get to the point of this long blog... While Atheists are arguing about an interesting moral dilemma, "Is it OK to cheat religious people in a good cause," there are plenty of people out there willing to cheat Christians, apparently including other Christians, who don't even feel the need for a good cause. They're happy to just take their money. Sadly, my wife's Christian friend fell for it, largely due to the publisher's purported Christian mission.

Tags: christian Christianity ethics morals atheist atheism

Most Atheists are RIGHT: Religion really does cause violence

Having spent two blogs (part 1, part 2) explaining why religion doesn't cause violence, it's time to refute that statement.

More exactly, I'm going to refine it: Religion isn't at the root of violence (evolution is), but religion greatly amplifies violence.

A huge portion of the "laws" laid down in the Bible are, by today's standards, barbaric and primitive. If a priest's daughter becomes a prostitute, the Bible says she should be burned at the stake (Leviticus 21:9). The penalty for blasphemy is death (Leviticus 23:10-24). Adultery, incest, and homosexuality, any of these and more call for the death penalty, often by stoning.

Even people who claim to follow the Bible's laws, and believe the Bible's inerrancy, can't stomach these laws today. We've evolved, we now know better, but the Bible is frozen in time.

Should we accept these millenia-old rules as our laws, just because two thousand years ago, a group of Jewish scholars declared that these were God's own words?

My primary thesis is not wrong, quite the contrary: Violence is part of our genetic makeup (our instincts), and religious memes that support violence are just an example of memetic evolution at work, shaping the religious memeplex to fit well into its environment (our brains).

But we're supposed to be civilized. We're supposed to move beyond our primitive animal instincts that make us fight and kill one another. We've evolved brains that are powerful enough to understand good and evil. We've evolved culture, and empathy, and the concepts of right and wrong. We understand that sometimes the individual has to subjugate his/her own raw desires for the good of the family, the village, or the world.

Unfortunately, some religions are holding us back from these achievements.

Somewhere along the way, a bunch of parables, historical "tall tales," and good advice, got converted into the inerrant Word of God, purportedly correct in every respect and for all time. The Inerrancy Meme, one of the evolved tricks that religion uses to defend itself from criticism, arose in the Jewish culture a few hundred years before the time of Christ. Since then, it's become a huge barrier to progress in human ethics: If we left it to religions that follow the Inerrance Meme, human ethical advancement would be frozen in time forever.

Religion is not the root of violence and war; that distinction goes to evolution, keeping us in keen competition with one another for survival of the fittest. But religion is holding us back, exacerbating and amplifying the worst parts of our animal nature, and preventing us from evolving to the next level of ethical achievement.

Tags: atheism atheist religion morals ethics evolution memes virus christian jew memes memeplex dawkin harris hitchens

The Religion Virus: Atheist ethics, part 3

Secular morality is inherently more moral than religious morality. Secular morality is accountable to itself, whereas religious morality is "free standing," without any foundation.

Let's start with a relevant analogy: Science versus faith. The foundation of science, far more important than any particular discovery, is accountability: Any scientific claim must be verifiable. As Richard Feynman famously said,

The first principle [of science] is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.

Science is the process of finding rational, consistent explanations for natural phenomena, explanations that can be written down and verified by others. Any fact, however trivial, that contradicts a scientific theory immediately requires that the theory be revised or rejected.

By contrast, faith-based explanations of natural phenomena (we are, of course, talking mainly about creationism and its relatives) have no accountability. They don't have to match the facts, they don't have to provide any deep insight, they don't have to be verifiable. Worst of all, history shows that faith-based explanations of nature are often motivated by politics and power, not a desire for knowledge.

Now back to morals.

Secular morality has rested on the solid foundation built by the Greek Rationalist (Plato, Socrates, Aristotle and their intellectual followers) for over 2,500 years. These amazing philosophers realized that morals had to start from a foundation that everyone could agree on, that is, an axiom that was plainly true. They selected happiness and improving the human condition as their axiom; who could possibly dispute that happiness and health are good, and suffering and pain are bad?

Based on this axiom, the Greek Rationalists built a set of moral principles, one that was based on sound logic, and that anyone could examine for flaws. And many did: The earliest ethical treatises have been discussed, dissected, and improved since they were first proposed. Yet even today, Aristotle's ethics stand as one of the greatest intellectual achievements of all time.

The key point here is that secular morality has accountability. You can't just make stuff up; new claims about secular morality must rest on the foundation of improving the human condition and must have a logical connection to that foundation. Furthermore, like the scientific method, secular claims about morality are open to scrutiny. If you make a claim about morality, you have to explain it clearly, show how it is derived from the foundation, and be willing to defend your position.

By contrast, religious morality is without foundation. If you believe morality comes from God, then you fall into trap that Plato discovered: What is the foundation of God's morality? How does God know what is good and what is bad? If you argue that God just knows, then you've admitted that there are things (like human happiness) that are axiomatic, and you're back to the secular position – you don't need God in the equation. If you argue that something is good because God says it's good, then God could say rape and murder are good, and they would be good, and the argument is circular; there is no foundation.

Those of faith claim their morality is inspired directly by God, but if that's true, then God is very confused. For example, He made numerous laws about how to treat slaves, but no laws prohibiting slavery. He made conflicting laws, and dietary laws that make no sense in today's modern world. He made laws that we have to prostate ourselves and praise His glory, a very odd thing for a supreme being to want.

And if that's not enough, religious morals quickly lose relevance as societies progress, yet they're frozen in time by the "inerrancy meme" – it asserts that the Bible is a perfect transcription of God's own words. Morality becomes cast in stone, and religions can't adapt as human society advances.

I discussed in a previous blog how churches claim to have the "lock" on morality, that without God, morality is impossible. In fact, just the opposite is true: Religious morals are inherently inferior to secular morals.

The Religion Virus: Atheist ethics, part 1

Is evolution wrong just because we don't like the facts it predicts? This is one of the most persuasive, yet deeply flawed, arguments that religious apologists use to convince the "faithful" that there must be a God.

In the bookstore's philosophy/religion section today, I encountered a book with a provocative title, something like "The Ten Worst Ideas in History." (The real title doesn't matter, I don't want to encourage anyone to buy it.) Among his "ten worst ideas" was Darwinism, and his reason for including it – get ready for this – is that it predicts that animals and humans will behave "immorally."

This is an embarassing error of philosophy, that facts can be rejected simply because we don't like them. And worse, this purported expert in philosophy, a man with an extensive education, doesn't see just how absurd this is. Not only the author, but his agent, his editor, the publisher who agreed to take on the book, the bookstores that decided to put it on their shelves, and the people who buy it.

One of of Darwin's most profound insights had nothing to do with evolution; it was about science itself:

A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, a mere heart of stone.

This simple sentence encapsulates one of the most profound aspects of the scientific method: We must be open to the truth, no matter how unpleasant, or how much at odds with our beliefs.

Darwin's "heart of stone" does not mean a scientist must be cold and cruel, nor indifferent to the results of his/her work. Rather, Darwin was referring to the process of discovering the truth; while we are investigating, experimenting, and hypothesizing, we must take on a mantle of impartiality. We must shed our desires and preconceived notions, and let the facts dictate the truth to us.

It is only after we discover the truth that we can shed our objectivity and consider the moral and ethical implications.

(This is not to say we should conduct unethical science! Don't confuse unethical or cruel behavior with an open mind. The truth can be discovered with ethical experiments and investigations. But we must not let our ethics bias our discovery of truth.)

The author of this "Ten Worst Ideas" book is a scientific and philosophical illiterate. He completely rejects the most basic principles that were responsible for lifting humanity from our hunter-gatherer roots to modern civilization. The author started from a conclusion (that humans were inherently moral and good, presumably because God made us that way, and can be again), and asserts that it is "fact." With this "axiom," he can easily "prove" that Darwinism is inherently flawed, since Darwinism predicts that things like parasitism, racism, infanticide and other unpleasant behaviors are natural.

This, I believe, is one of the worst symptoms of the anti-science attitudes so prevalent today around the world. The people who buy these books are the same ones fighting to inject creationist drivel into our science curriculum, which will only increase the ignorance of true science.

An atheist is inherently better able to do science, because the atheist has no religion that s/he has to reconcile with the facts. The facts can speak for themselves.

Similarly, an Atheist's morals can be derived from natural principles, based on kindness, making the world a better place, and minimizing suffering. Atheists aren't saddled with "truths" that were dictated two thousand years ago by priests with a political agenda, by fictional beliefs about the human soul, by antiquated dietary laws, or by guilt-laden sexuality.