Atheism and Logical Consequences

Jen McCreight and Natalie Reed are two bloggers (among others) who have lately written of "conflicts internal to the Atheist Movement." I found both of those entries fascinating, in part because they represent a bit of a reality check for some people who had idealistic hopes for a movement that, unfortunately, like all other movements, involves people. And so many hopes have been dashed.

Jen McCreight writes: "It's been five years now since I first became involved with the atheist and skeptic movements. And for most of those five years, I felt like I belonged... Until I started talking about feminism."

And then in this follow-up establishing "A+" atheism, Jen includes the following quote from danielmchugh that "perfectly" summarizes how she feels:

Religion is responsible for generating and sustaining most of the racism, sexism, anti-(insert minority human subgroup here)-isms... it gave a voice to the bigotry, established the privilege, and fed these things from the pulpit for thousands upon thousands of years. What sense does it make to throw out the garbage bag of religion yet keep all the garbage that it contained? 

I can't help but see social justice as a logical consequence of atheism. I'm for getting rid of all the garbage.

That social justice would be seen as a logical consequence of atheism is quite astounding. I certainly admire the social justice atheists for putting social justice and atheism together, as opposed to choosing only the latter. And yet, the very reason these posts were written is that sexism was discovered --- no! --- within the ranks of atheism!

This interesting argument follows from the claims being made:

1. Religion is responsible for generating and sustaining "most" of the sexism (among other social injustices).
2. A number of people involved in the atheist and skeptic movements have demonstrated sexism.
3. Therefore: a number of people involved in the atheist and skeptic movements are either (a) religious, or they're (b) members of the tiny group of non-religious sexists.

#1 is quoted from above, and I take it to mean that each instance of sexism (or another social injustice) springs either from religion, or from a tiny class of non-religious causes. How tiny? I don't know.

#2 is the fact that has led to Jen's posts, and to the foundation of A+ atheism.

#3 is an interesting consequence that one really can draw, logically, from the claims Jen and danielmchugh have made here. If we go with (a), then it's not OK to admit that atheists can be just as bigoted as anyone else can be, and instead one must allege that the sexist ones aren't really atheists at all, or else they couldn't be sexist! Or if we go with (b), then they are accused only of logical inconsistency, in failing to notice that their atheism condemns their sexism.

Of course, Jen and danielmchugh don't really want to accuse other atheists of being closet theists; the charge here is (b), that many atheists are logically inconsistent in neglecting social justice.

Neither of (a) or (b) seems to me to be the case. Arguments have been made, on non-theistic grounds, that social justice is rationally required of us; just peruse the history of ethical theory. (Aristotle might be a good starting place.) But to call social justice a logical consequence of atheism surely overstates the case. (To be blunt, it reminds me of the kind of group-think that I've seen come up in Sunday School classes. Christians are often just as over-confident as danielmchugh in the obviousness of their rightness.)

There's a better explanation for the occurrence of sexism among atheists than either (a) or (b). People tend to think quite a lot of themselves, and this inherent human pride and selfishness is manifested in many ways. One of those manifestations is the kind of sexism that Jen and Natalie are right to criticize. Some sexist people are Christians, some of them are Hindu, some of them lived in ancient Athens, some of them drive imported automobiles, and some of them don't. Also, some of them are atheists.

No one group -- atheist, Christian, or otherwise -- has any claim whatsoever to a pristine historical record on social justice, or any exclusive claim to the grounds for social justice. Arguments for social justice can and have been made on Christian principles, on non-theistic principles, and on lots of other principles besides. To believe that "religion is responsible for generating and sustaining most of the ... bigotry" requires a highly selective reading of history. Here's how Terry Eagleton put it, in his review of Dawkin's The God Delusion:

Such is Dawkins's unruffled scientific impartiality that in a book of almost four hundred pages, he can scarcely bring himself to concede that a single human benefit has flowed from religious faith, a view which is as a priori improbable as it is empirically false. The countless millions who have devoted their lives selflessly to the service of others in the name of Christ or Buddha or Allah are wiped from human history -- and this by a self-appointed crusader against bigotry.

So -- hats off to Jen McCreight and the other A+ atheists, who are +ing social justice to atheism. That's surely a move to be applauded by anyone.

I hope they also take their skeptical principles even more deeply to heart. I, for one, am skeptical that "religion" is as bad as they think, and that the logical consequences of atheism reach so far as they think.

Easy Apple Scroll Handle Patent Workaround: Dim the scroll handle

I've read about Apple's new disappearing-scroll-handle patent twice. (Most lately, here: http://blog.inner-active.com/2012/07/oh-no-here-we-go-again-check-out-the-new-patent-apple-was-just-granted/)

I'll be frank. I don't like the disappearing scroll handle. I like to glance at the scroll handle to know how long the page is, and here's a frequent scenario: I start reading an article/blog/forum post and think "this is good, but should I keep reading, start skimming, or just stop now?" Then I twitch the screen so I can see the scroll handle again.

So instead of making the scroll handle "cease" to be displayed, which is what the patent seems to cover, why not just dim it significantly? If it's transparency is high enough the content underneath is still visible. Sounds great to me.

That seems not to be covered by the patent -- based on my cursory reading -- and I would personally see it as an improvement.

Stereoscopic Southwest

I've been taking stereoscopic photos for years. I'm an amateur's amateur, and I just do it the easy way: take a picture, move the camera to the side, take another. Then line them up and cross your eyes — sometimes it's interesting. The following were all taken on my recent trip - I haven't touched them up at all; I just ran a small shell script that put the images alongside each other.

I used my iPhone 4 (8MP camera) to take these pictures, just because I didn't want to bother taking our real camera on the trip. I'm sure I could GIMP (Photoshop for poor and/or principled people) these pictures into much better shape, but these and all the ones you don't see here would definitely have been better if I had taken them with a real camera. So maybe I'll manage to do that next time.

In order to get the 3D effect, I recommend clicking an image to open it as large as possible. Then try to cross your eyes so the two images blend into one, and then bring that one image into focus. It may help if you roll or step back from your screen so you don't have to cross your eyes as much. You may also need to practice tilting your head slightly from side-to-side in order to get the blending to line up properly.

Let's start with this one, which isn't worth opening up larger. I moved the camera too much from side-to-side in between shots. (Nobody's eyes are 12 inches apart.) I am very nicely 3D, but the canyon behind me is just headache-inducing. Best to practice with this one just the way you see it here, and then open up the following ones to be larger:

These four were taken along the South rim of the Grand Canyon:

These two were taken at the Mohave Point stop on the shuttle bus. That river you see down there is approximately 4.5 miles away.

Spruce Tree House in Mesa Verde National Park:

Looking up while standing by Spruce Tree House:

Part of Spruce Tree House:

Looking across the top of Spruce Tree House:

Somewhere on the trail back up from Spruce Tree House:

My brother Mark:

I was lucky to catch this view at Henry Doorly Zoo in Omaha, NE. I was riding on the Skyfari and managed to keep the camera steady enough and avoid other Skyfari cars, poles, etc.