Metro State Atheists: Making noise, making a difference in Denver
Metro State Atheists: Making noise, making a difference in Denver
by Joel Guttormson, Metro State Atheists at MSCD
Many things happen during a college semester: mid-terms, finals, work and…activism? Yes, activism! That is the case for us, Metro State Atheists (MSA), an affiliate of the Center for Inquiry. Besides the classes, work, and other academic responsibilities that we endure, we participated in some secular activist activity that put me in the spotlight both locally and nationally.
Not many can argue that 2008 wasn’t a historic election, not only for the entire country, but also for Colorado as we hosted the 2008 Democratic National Convention. However, that wasn’t the only history being made—at least trying to be made—in Colorado. Amendment 48, or the Personhood Amendment, was on its way to become the first legislation in the United States to not only completely ban abortion but also redefine the term “person”: “to include any human being from the moment of fertilization.” When our group became aware of this initiative early in the summer, we immediately knew that we had to do all we could to prevent this from passing. That is just what we did, come the fall. We contacted the political group “Protect Families Protect Choice,” to offer our support, and they responded by giving us informational material as well as yard signs, stickers, etc. We then had two informational tables set up two weeks out from the election urging people to vote no on Amendment 48. This caught the eye of our local news, Channel 9, which was in the process of doing stories on the different amendments on the Colorado ballot. They asked to interview me about Amendment 48 the next day on campus as a part of their series that aired live online. Come November 4th, Amendment 48 failed miserably, much to our pleasure. We’d like to think we had a hand it its demise, seeing as we worked quite hard on campus to that end.
Next, without much warning, came what would turn out to be the most media coverage we have ever received. MSA is a part of the Colorado Coalition of Reason, or COCORE, which put up 11 billboards in the Denver metro area and Colorado Springs. The message was similar to those seen elsewhere around the country. The billboards needed only eight words, “Don’t believe in God? You are not alone,” to ignite a controversy that took two local newscasts (11/13/08, 11/18/08) and a half-page opinion article in the Rocky Mountain News to clear up. The fervently religious were utterly offended that such a message was allowed in Denver. The story received national media attention when the Channel 7 news story made its way onto CNN.com. We saw our first hate mail ever, from Christians no less, calling us evil and full of hate. I got phone calls too! However, instead of being mean-spirited phone calls, they were supportive. A man from South Carolina called me, telling me that he appreciates what we are doing and asked me, as a fellow atheist, if there were any similar organizations such as MSA or COCORE in his area. Another call was from a Jew lending his support to the cause. This project was a great learning experience and we enjoyed the huge amount of media coverage it got. It made more of an impact that we could have hoped for in our wildest dreams.
The last and most recent event wasn’t really an event, so to speak. After rediscovering my cousin Becky via Facebook, I learned that her pastor is Bob Enyart who appeared on the same newscast as I regarding the aforementioned billboards. She told me that ever since she told Bob that I was her cousin, he has been wanting to have me on his show on 670 AM, KGOV. She then served as a go-between to make the proper arrangements for me to be on the show. In short order we arranged a date and time. I appeared on Bob Enyart Live on January 7th, 2009. We talked about atheism, the billboards, and about how I became an atheist. This was an advantageous interview as Bob has offered to advertise our events to people of an opposing viewpoint, which we believe is critical to our cause.
In closing, I’d like to stress the importance of organizing. Although the task of secular activism and attempting to effect change can be tough, and at times seem impossible, it can be done, even if it’s just change at the local level. Think big, but take baby steps. The American Revolution wasn’t born, fought, and won in a day. We need to stay vigilant, learning from every victory and, perhaps more importantly, from every defeat. When a minority is fighting a majority who commands all the power and resources, it amplifies the importance of cohesive, organized goal-oriented activism by many orders of magnitude. Gandhi said, “Be the change you want to see in the world.” I believe this is insufficient and passive. You must not only be the change but also be willing to work for it. Thus, I appeal to you all: work with us, fight hard, and we can bring about the change necessary to make this country what it once was!
Joel Guttormson is President of Metro State Atheists and a theoretical mathematics major, linguistics minor at Metropolitan State College of Denver. Joel also volunteers for CFI as a campus regional coordinator.
Joel’s Commentary on appearance on Bob Enyart Live 1/7/09
Introduction
As many of you know, I was a guest on the KGOV program, Bob Enyart Live. Bob is the pastor at Denver Bible Church and host of the show bearing his name. If you missed the show you can listen to it here. Since the show is only half an hour, there were things I didn’t get to explain or talk about in the detail I would have liked. Further, since Bob is the host, he is obviously going to control the speaking time and thus I was left with less than he had, further added to the lack of time I had to explain and expand on my points. However, this is not way a swipe at Bob or the way he conducts the show, it’s the way it is with any radio show regardless of topic. The topics I wanted to address are: the discussion towards the end relating to my statement that design and beauty are subjective, that “Bob and Joel agreed that Christians do not assert that God came into existence with the writing of the Bible. Thus inconsistencies, even if they were shown to exist in Scripture, would not disprove God’s existence.”(Source: http://www.kgov.com), and that “being a person has more to do with the non-physical realm of ideas, logic, relationships, and reason, than it does with chemistry and physics.” (Source: http://www.kgov.com). I was going to tackle the Einstein quotation, but a comment left on a previous blog addresses the topic/point well enough that I don’t not feel that further elaboration is necessary.
1. Beauty and Design are subjective
“The eye may be useful, and apparently well adapted for vision, however it could also serve as a moderately good tetherball for some appropriately sized people or sophisticated mice.”
As previously stated, this discussion occurred toward the end of the show and left neither I nor Bob the sufficient amount of time necessary to address each other’s point to the extent they deserved. In an effort to state this correctly I will quote directly, both myself and Bob. Bob begins by claiming “there is a universe of extraordinary beauty and sophistication and obvious design”. To which I responded “…everything you just said, design and beauty, those are subjective claims”, to which Bob said “design is not subjective”. Here is where the discussion prematurely ended due to time constraints. Thus, this is where I’d like to begin my expansion of my claims and a refutation of Bob’s.
Bob and I agreed that beauty is subjective but disagreed with me about my assertion that design is. When it comes to object of human manufacture, this is true. However, to reverse the ‘watchmaker’ example, suppose one does in fact come upon a watch. One who is ignorant of clocks and watches and possibly the idea of time itself may derive a alternative idea of what the device, that we call a watch, is designed for. This may be stretching a bit, given we must assume the person finding the watch is more or less an idiot. Therefore, let us examine my claim only using examples to drive the point home. When I say design is subjective, I obviously do not mean it literally. What I mean when I say that is observations of some structure or object cannot lead one to infer design automatically or because something “looks complicated”, which is what Bob and most creationists mean when they say something is designed. Further, if design isn’t subjective then creationists should stop using the term as in the following sentence: “the eye looks designed”. The word “looks” has a contextual sense of subjectivity; its a word that, used in this context, implies that the viewer/speaker is offering his/her opinion of the observation, not stating a fact of any kind. However, one need not include the work “looks” in the statement; such is the case with Bob’s statement “there is a universe of extraordinary beauty and sophistication and obvious design”. He means design in the way I described above. This is, in fact, a subjective use of the word design. Bob used the eye example, like most creationists do. He says that the eye is designed for vision. That’s a subjective claim, because evolution wasn’t trying for an eye that has vision, per say. Vision is an incidental by product of the arrangement of the different “parts” of the eye working together. I will now attempt to drive home my point using my own example. Let us suppose we have an ordinary hammer. There are those that would say that a hammer is “designed” to drive nails into wood, or some other equally pliable material. Now, suppose further that we happen to find this same hammer used as an axle for a toy truck. Now, although the hammer works as an axle for the toy truck, it wasn’t designed for this purpose; or was it? The fact that it works as the axle for the toy truck might be used as evidence that the hammer was, in fact, designed for this purpose. However, this assumption is baseless and is flawed because it is fraught with the bias of seeing it work this way in this particular, specialized instance. To bring this back to the famous eye example brought up by Bob; the eye may be useful, and apparently well adapted for vision, however it could also serve as a moderately good tether ball for some appropriately sized people or sophisticated mice. So, to wrap up my point. The appearance of design can be and is, most of the time, quite deceiving. This is precisely because the human brain is wired such that it seeks out patterns and logically systems in things that may not have them at all, such as clouds. Therefore, it will also seek out a “reason” for something being the way it is; its design.
2. Biblical/Scriptural inconsistencies do not disprove God’s existence
“God is then, at best, reduced to a highly intelligent extraterrestrial capable of creating life on a planet and futilely attempting to affect that life by writing a book.”
This, on the surface, appears to be true. In fact, on some level it is. This is useful for getting out of the circular logic of “God wrote the bible, the bible asserts that God exists, therefore God exists”; for if God didn’t write the bible, then what it says about God’s existence is irrelevant to some degree and since it’s the not the foundation of the argument for his existence, one has broken free of the circle. However, Bob asserts that the bible is “the infallible word of the living God”. Starting with this premise, the following are also true (written in order of implication): God exists, God is perfect and thus infallible, God wrote the bible, the bible then is perfect and infallible as a prefect being cannot beget imperfection. Therefore, any imperfection, however slight, would ,at minimum, call God’s perfection into question. But, following the implications of this, we see that the following would then be true if any imperfection were discovered in the bible: God exists, God isn’t perfect or infallible, God wrote the bible, the bible isn’t perfect or infallible. Thus, we’re left with an imperfect, fallible God. What good is this? God is then, at best, reduced to a highly intelligent extraterrestrial capable of creating life on a planet and futilely attempting to affect that life by writing a book. In other words, God would be a super intelligent cosmic mad scientist bent on power, self satisfaction and the cessation of boredom. Of course, this doesn’t disprove God exists but it sure lends quite a bit of doubt. In fact, it creates enough doubt to make it more reasonable not to believe in such a deity. (Notice that this line of reasoning can be applied to all three monotheisms, not just Christianity.)
3. Being a person has more to do with the non-physical realm…than it does with chemistry and physics
“Then with this 60% of soul and spirit, shouldn’t all dogs go to heaven? ”
This is hefty claim, even by theological standards. I’ll start by taking a tally of those things “about us” that are physical, aka comprised of tangible matter and energy. Our DNA, made of amino acids, which are molecules composed of atoms; our nervous system is made of nerves and energy in the form of electrical impulses which are generated by internal and external stimuli which are themselves are physical; lastly, and most importantly, our brain, composed of tissue, fluid and neurons which are themselves are physical matter. Further, these neurons “communicate” with one another via chemical and electrical signals, which are also physical. The brain receives information about the world via stimuli provided by the aforementioned nervous system and its various specific subparts (ie eyes, ears). So far, we’re looking like pretty material beings. However, Bob asserts that things like memories, personality, consciousness and ideas are non-physical and thus are proof of, at least, a realm beyond the purely material. I attempted to point out on the show that memories are stored in the brain via the chemical and electrical impulses that the neurons use to communicate with each other. Personality can be seen in what is commonly referred to the “animal kingdom” (though I don’t care too much for this distinction as it implies that we’re higher than animals when we clearly are animals). For instance, any individual of our closest evolutionary cousin the chimpanzee exhibits what we recognize as personality. To “move down” , so to speak, the “animal hierarchy” (again these terms are misleading) to our more distant relatives; dogs are said to have personalities of their own. Their owners tend to use words and emotional descriptors usually and generally reserved for humans. Some dogs also have a uncanny memory that we humans have attempted to harness via artificial selection. So if dogs have memories and personalities, shouldn’t they have, at least 2/3 of soul and spirit, as Bob claims we do because we have these properties. Then with this 60% of soul and spirit, shouldn’t all dogs go to heaven? No. They don’t because they haven’t accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior. Poor dogs. But I digress. The only property, as far as science can tell thusfar, that we have attained that is different from the rest of the animals that cohabit this planet, is consciousness. What is consciousness exactly? Its not easily defined, is it? Let us examine what it means, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. Consciousness is “The state or faculty of being conscious, as a condition and concomitant of all thought, feeling, and volition; ‘the recognition by the thinking subject of its own acts or affections’” and “The state of being conscious, regarded as the normal condition of healthy waking life”. What is conscious, you might ask? It is “having internal perception or consciousness: a. of a fact. b. of one’s sensations, feelings, thoughts, etc.” However, as far as science can tell us to this point, this is also a manifestation of the matter and energy of the brain; similar to memories and personality, described earlier. This leads to an interesting thought concerning the story of Adam in the bible. In the traditional bible story, Adam and Eve are walking around naked without a care in the world. That is until, according to the story Eve eats the apple and all the sudden they become “aware” of themselves. So one could in a sense posit that Adam and Eve weren’t conscious until this point. According to Bob consciousness is an important, if not the most important part of what he called the soul and spirit. So, Adam and Eve weren’t conscious human beings until they ate from the tree of knowledge. The last of the non-physical things Bob brings up is ideas. It is true that ideas are nebulous. However, what can be said is that not all ideas are 100% original. Ideas stem from combining, sometimes consciously and subconsciously, memories, stimuli, and logic. Thus, like the other things our brain does ideas are also is a manifestation of physical matter.
Conclusion
I hope this has helped clarify some of my points and my refutations of Bob’s points. This isn’t in anyway intended to be an attack on Bob Enyart, his show or anyone close to him. I don’t want this to be misconstrued as me “getting back at him” nor is it saying that I was shortchanged during the show in terms of time. This was simply an expansion of my views and thoughts on certain topics of the show I didn’t feel got enough explanation or attention.
Vice President’s Commentary On Bob Enyart’s Interview Of Joel
By Chalmer Wren, VP of Metro State Atheists
Yesterday at 3:00pm Metro State Atheists’ President and co-founder, Joel Guttormson, was interviewed by Bob Enyart on AM 670 KLTT. While I was not interviewed, I did have a great deal to say regarding the content of the interview, so I thought I would share my thoughts with all of you. If you didn’t catch the show, check it out at http://kgov.com/bel/20090107. Before getting into things, though, I would like to mention that I accompanied Joel to the studio and had the pleasure of meeting Bob myself. Bob was polite and accommodating. Joel and I both had a great time, and we are both very grateful to Bob for inviting us to appear on the show. Also, Bob, if you read this please let me know if I misrepresented you or the points you made.
Near the beginning of the interview, Bob asked Joel why he is an Atheist. Joel gave some information about his background, but never specifically answered the question. Firstly, we believe that there is insufficient evidence to reasonably conclude that God(s) exist. We feel that the burden of proof is on the believer, and unless the believer can produce good evidence, we have no reason to agree with them. Secondly, we think it is reasonable to conclude that God(s), or at least most of the ones that have been presented to us, probably do not exist.
We hold to the improbability of God(s) for several reasons. Many of the God(s) presented to us have logically inconsistent definitions. Epicurus first introduced what is generally referred to as the problem of evil in the following quotation:
Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?
This is only one example at an attempt to reconcile the conflicting attributes often assigned to God. For more examples, you might try David Hume, one of my favorite philosophers. These sort of objections to God’(s’) existence are not at all uncommon, and should not be hard to find. Click here for more information on the problem of evil. I don’t want to get into the details of these arguments right now, but would be glad to expand on any of them if asked to do so. I should clarify that we are not absolutely certain that no God(s) exist, we simply think that the most reasonable conclusion, given our present evidence and understanding, is that God(s) probably does not exist.
Joel mentions that he is an empiricist; as am I. Within the scope of epistemology, three main groups exist which are empiricism, dualism, and rationalism. None of these epistemological positions necessarily restrict one from or force one to believe in God(s). Empiricism is the position that knowledge comes exclusively from the senses. David Hume was an empiricist and, while some might disagree, I believe that Immanuel Kant was an empiricist as well. Rationalism is the position that knowledge is is not acquired from experience, but that it is innate. Dualism, as the name implies, sits right in the middle of the aforementioned views. Dualism is the position that some knowledge comes from experience, and that some is innate. Rene Descartes and Plato, for example, were dualists. For more on dualism, click here.
Now, based on the discussion between Joel and Bob, I suspect that Bob is a dualist. This is not at all surprising. Though dualism does not necessarily lead to theism, or the converse, philosophical dualism is the prevailing outlook in western religion (not to say that it isn’t prevalent else were). I can only speculate that this is becuase dualism, if presumed accurate, makes believing in God(s) a great deal easier becuase it allows for the existence of a non-physical aspect of our reality.
Joel mentions he is a theoretical math major early on, which later prompts Bob to challenge the basis of Joel’s empiricism by appealing to the non-physical nature of the principles expressed in mathematics. The objection that I believe Bob is making is essentially that concepts are of a non-physical nature. He goes on to give a clever analogy, stating
“If you rubbed your hand on a piece of paper over an equation could you feel that its valid”
Though this is a valid point, I does not refute the notion that mathematical concepts are non-physical. We hold that concepts, ideas, notions, and other cognitive occurrences are a manifestation of physical interactions in the brain. Though we can not observe a principle in the way we can smell flowers or hear music, principles and concepts must stem from observation. Our concepts of depth, color, or even complexity are abstract derivations that we reach by thinking about our observations. I challenge anyone reading this to find within themselves a concept that neither describes a direct observation or that can be abstracted from an observation. I see no reason to conclude that conceptual understanding is not an emergent property of the natural human mind. For more on this topic, please see The Mind Body Problem. This particular topic is far to extensive for me to cover it in this post, but anyone interested in more details should ask.
Bob goes on to claim that reason, or rather our ability to apply reason to our observations, precede our observations. The ability to reason can not be observed, and I agree with Bob on this. However, the ability to reason could just as easily be attributed to the natural human mind as it could to a spirit or soul. Reason, we believe, is an intrinsic function of the physical human brain, just as acceleration is a property of a functioning automobile.
Well that’s all for now. I could talk about epistemology for days, so I will refrain from further elaboration unless someone asks for it. Once again, thank you Bob Enyart and KGOV for having us.
- Chalmer Wren
Joel Guttormson on Bob Enyart Live 1/7/08
In case you missed the show, you can listen to it online here.
Soon, Chalmer and I (Joel) will have blogs up commenting on different aspects of the show. Watch this page tomorrow as we’ll be posting links to the blogs in this post, in case you don’t see them on the main page.
Joel’s Commentary
Chalmer’s Commentary
Thank you!
Joel
President
Metro State Atheists
Joel Guttormson debates radio show host Bob Enyart (AM 670)
From Theology Online:
“Atheist Billboard spokesman, Joel Guttormson, (“Don’t Believe in God, You’re Not Alone”) will debate Radio talk show host Bob Enyart this Wednesday on Bob’s radio and Internet show (AM 670, Internet www.KGOV.com) .
Both sides have been sent information on the other (Bob’s show with his interview of Dan Barker was sent to Joel, and Joel’s website http://metrostateatheists.wordpress.com/ was sent to Bob).”
The show will at 3pm MT, Wednesday January 7th.
Here is the link to Bob’s interview with our friend Dan Barker.
Commentary on the show can be viewed by using the links below:
Joel’s Commentary
Chalmer’s Commentary
Metro State Atheists
