Stephanie Zvan doesn't understand cyberstalking

In this post, I will analyze a blog post by popular atheist blogger Stephanie Zvan in which she proposes criterion for what constitutes cyberstalking and asserts that she is being cyberstalked (and abused). I will argue that her definition is most unreasonable, would lead to absurd consequences, and that Zvan -- as a blogger on a prominent blog network -- should realize that what she constitutes as cyberstalking is par for the course in regards to public figures like her. Further, I will argue that Zvan seems to be minimizing cyberstalking and seems to be speaking from a position of privilege - I will provide examples of abuse and cyberstalking -- among other examples -- I have received because I am an atheist activist. 


What's the issue?

Stephanie Zvan -- blogger at "Almost Diamonds" on Freethought Blogs (likely one of the most-viewed websites aggregating blogs by atheists) -- recently authored a post titled "Is Cyberstalking Abuse?" in which she responded to a post authored by Todd Stiefel concerning harassment at atheist/skeptic conventions. Stephanie notes that she is "pretty sure we [atheists] as a movement simply aren't grown up enough to handle [ourselves(?)]" and "not sure we're grown up enough to handle what abuse is." Explicating, Zvan defines what she means by 'cyberstalker,'

The facts of the matter here are that Rebecca Watson and the outspoken feminists of FtB and a few of the people we talk with and about have a bunch of cyberstalkers. These are people who get together to talk about what we write, our speeches, our tweets, our postings on Facebook, pictures of us available on the web. They glean the personal information we use to make ourselves and our topics more relatable and go back years to try to dig up dirt. They lie when they can’t find anything ugly enough for them. They built a fucking wiki dedicated to us. Not only that, but every bit of them talking about this stuff is meant to damage us. We have cyberstalkers.

Later in the post, Zvan proposes what might be considered the opposite (not a cyberstalker),

People argue with us in public places–which is fine–with no plan for dealing with our stalkers–which isn’t, because it means we can’t interact with our critics without interacting with our stalkers. Then people get on our cases for being insular if we protect ourselves by staying away. They, with the best of intentions, aid the people who are trying to shut us out of the public conversation because they can’t or won’t believe the situation is real.

Zvan also alludes to ERV, a blog on the ScienceBlogs network, where what she believes to be cyberstalking is taking place. She notes that National Geographic hosts the blog "[d]espite the fact that [she and like-minded persons] been talking about this for months, and dealt publicly with two threats to conference speakers that have come from our stalkers, people still claim we have no reason to ever feel threatened."

---

A reasonable definition?

Is Zvan's definition of a cyberstalker a tenable one, especially in light of cyberstalking having serious legal consequences? While 'bringing a dictionary to a debate' is not always the most helpful course of action, I think it would be helpful to first review some proposed definitions of cyberstalking -- from the first page of Google results -- considering that legal terms, of course, have definitions.

First, from the National Conference of State Legislatures,

Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet, email or other electronic communications to stalk, and generally refers to a pattern of threatening or malicious behaviors. Cyberstalking may be considered the most dangerous of the three types of Internet harassment, based on a posing credible threat of harm. Sanctions range from misdemeanors to felonies.

Second, from North Carolina law,

(b) It is unlawful for a person to: 

(1) Use in electronic mail or electronic communication any words or language threatening to inflict bodily harm to any person or to that person's child, sibling, spouse, or dependent, or physical injury to the property of any person, or for the purpose of extorting money or other things of value from any person. 

(2) Electronically mail or electronically communicate to another repeatedly, whether or not conversation ensues, for the purpose of abusing, annoying, threatening, terrifying, harassing, or embarrassing any person. 

(3) Electronically mail or electronically communicate to another and to knowingly make any false statement concerning death, injury, illness, disfigurement, indecent conduct, or criminal conduct of the person electronically mailed or of any member of the person's family or household with the intent to abuse, annoy, threaten, terrify, harass, or embarrass.

Her first criterion, "These are people who get together to talk about what we write, our speeches, our tweets, our postings on Facebook, pictures of us available on the web" does not seem to be part of the above definitions - especially considering, as it should be important to emphasize once again, that Stephanie Zvan fits into the category of 'public figure' as she is one of the writers on the very popular Freethought Blogs network. Stephanie operates a Twitter feed, posts frequently on her blog, and offers a great deal of information about herself -- in many ways -- to her audience. Similarly, the other criterion seem to fail to cohere with the previous mentioned definitions of cyberstalking.

---

Blaming the victim?

Some people at this point may be thinking, "well, you're blaming the victim!" Before a glib dismissal would take place -- and perhaps in anticipation of it in the comment section or related comments -- it is important to consider some points. As a blogger [on a popular blog network], people should expect [if they garner a large enough audience] to receive criticism in many forms including personal attacks, strawmans, discourse similar to that of or otherwise indistinguishable from YouTube comments, and more. While this behavior might not be the nicest thing for one to do (rather than, for example, taking the person's argument, being charitable, avoiding personal attacks, etc) and I don't condone it, it will happen - and should be expected. A person who enters the blogosphere and then complains (or, perhaps, to stay in tune of being charitable, is expressing dissatisfaction with) about criticism while calling it cyberstalking, harassment, etc. seems to be in an awkward place and -- as others might say -- making a mountain out of a molehill.

Shall we consider people who, as Zvan notes, get together to talk about Zvan's communications in the form of what she writes [all public on her public blog and elsewhere, a result of her continued writing], speaks [recorded at conventions or whichever other venues she freely attends], Tweets [available on her Twitter feed open to the public], postings on Facebook [available to many followers and likely transmitted from person to person], and pictures available on the web [again, publicly available], personal information she uses to make her topics more relatable [publicly available in her publicly available writings], dirt from years past [likely publicly available], and a wiki page [based off her information freely available on the internet]. I don't think so.

---

Are all my Twitter followers cyberstalkers?

'Critical thinking 101' textbooks usually mention something called the reductio ad absurdum - a strategy of sorts that one can use to show an argument fails because, when the most logical consequences are reached, it would be profoundly unreasonable. For example, consider someone who believes that abortion is immoral on the grounds of it preventing potential life. A glib retort -- a reductio ad absurdum -- to this line of reasoning would be, "Well, you're not having sex right now...therefore you're preventing potential life."

In the same light, Zvan's definition of cyberstalking appears to fail because -- when taken to the most logical consequences -- we would have to consider, as a friend on my Facebook page noted, major news organizations to be cyberstalkers because they read everything that many well-known individuals write, dig up dirt, and talk about what they say, etc. Forums from those in the Tea Party movement who say nasty things about liberal political individuals would constitute cyberstalking. Similarly, comment threads on CNN, Fox News Network, etc. would also be considered cyberstalking. I would be considered to be cyberstalking many of my favorite living philosophers, my 'starred friends' on Facebook, and perhaps everyone on Twitter. My Twitter followers, additionally, read so many things I write...

--  
Magnitude and privilege

What about the magnitude of the alleged cyberstalking that Stephanie Zvan writes about? Can it be compared to legitimate forms of cyberstalking, harassment, etc. others may experience? Again, I don't condone nasty things people say about Stephanie and her associates -- and would not use that language myself -- even though she and her blogger friend 'Lousy Canuck' are happy to call me a "vacuous shitbag troll" and more in blog posts and comments.

Stephanie indeed is associated with nasty names on a daily basis as people say nasty things about her, but is there more than this? I'm also fully aware of some really bad experiences some have had at conventions and have read examples of harassment people have faced. This is bad and should not happen - although it, at the same time, is much different than what Zvan is calling cyberstalking - and certainly not something, to my knowledge, that Zvan has experienced. It's important not to conflate the comments of 'random people on the internet' who seem to be harmless and have no inclination of violence with these incidents. Might Zvan, then, be minimizing what constitutes cyberstalking [lacking solid examples of such outside of ERV comments, blog comments, etc]?

In many circles -- and rightly so in many cases -- the word "privilege" is thrown about. Some people, because of lack of experience or personal immutable characteristics, as some say, 'do not know what it is really like.' Christians who talk about 'Christian persecution' (when crosses are removed from governmental land, for example) are scoffed at by atheists like myself who can't even purchase and display an advertisement on the side of a county bus with the word "Atheists" on it while Muslims are being profiled and followed by FBI agents. I think that Stephanie Zvan is privileged in the sense that she doesn't really seem to know what cyberstalking is - or otherwise is inappropriately inflating the magnitude of what she deems to be cyberstalking. Let me state my case.

---

Consequences and repercussions

As an atheist activist, I understand that there will be repercussions that may follow my actions. In 2009, while on a telephone call with some people before I went forth with my first church/state complaint [click to see all posts of mine related to this issue], I was perhaps 'warned' and told that severe repercussions ranging from hate mail, violence, threats of violence, death threats, and even death may follow. A friend of mine from high school also called me while crying on the phone -- urging me to back down -- and honestly feared that I would be killed or physically harmed by many in the community - and with good reason for her to believe so given the oppressive climate that was present.

I had the chance to 'back out' in 2009, but refused to - while going forward with the understanding that repercussions would follow. I -- as an out atheist at a Catholic college -- challenged the constitutionality of a courthouse religious holiday display. I went on local television stations, had my picture taken for the front page of newspapers in interviews which I agreed to, went on local radio shows, and much more.

I was called 'the third most hated person in Luzerne County.' I received a tremendous amount of hate mail and threats from fellow college students (at my school), people in the Northeastern Pennsylvania area, people I went to high school with (some from those who had bullied me), a person in the military, and others. People sent letters to my college asking for me to be expelled. The director of Residence Life made sure to call me by phone at this time and heightened the security of the undisclosed location I stayed on while on campus during the winter break. She called to check on me and made sure I was safe. It goes on.

In a very strange turn of events, I was challenged to a wrestling match by a wrestler who goes by the moniker "Banger" Ritch Howe (the guy here with the black shirt) who, as a local radio personality said, attempted to use $1000 for charity as leverage to fight me - a person who is not at all a fighter calling me Justin "Eat Me" Vacula (whatever that is about) and "Looks like Justin Vacula eats shit. $10 says we never hear his name again." (He needs to pay up.) "Banger" then went on a radio show and said, "As far as Vacula's concerned, I'm the damned devil," "Oh, I'll definitely teach that boy some manners. He'll find God...oh, he'll pray come January 10th," and "I intend to do lots of brutal stuff."

Months later, "Banger" sent me hate mail calling me an "attention whore," calling my actions "mean-spirited and spiteful," noted that my "personality detracts from any cause [I] may be championing," that 'I am far from being an actual benefit to the community," and am a hypocrite because I challenged a psychic to a test of her abilities and failed to fight him in December. He then went on to say that I don't believe in God because my parents failed me and this is why I am so angry and this "hardly takes a therapist to identify it." Further, "Banger" noted, "nothing [I] will ever say will matter in the least, because [I] lack the courage to follow [my] convictions past a typing fit," that I am "pretty convincing proof no such thing "intelligent design" exists," and that I am "just another useless bump on the log of social ignorance" ...among many other things.

Also in 2009, Roman Catholic blogger "The Rockin' Traddy" -- writing about "traditional Catholicism and today's liberal church" from Luzerne County, the county which I lived in at the time -- authored five interesting blog posts with my name as a tag. In "Hellbound Plan Next Assault," Traddy used the following terms to describe me: "Dungeons and Dragons playing" (not the most obvious fact about myself that may have been gleaned from my Facebook profile), "girlfriendless" (a fact about myself, at the time, that had nothing to do with a church/state issue - likely gained from my Facebook profile), "living in their parents' basement losers" (odd thing, not true) noting "Traddy has eyes everywhere. I have observed these people [referring to members of the atheist community group which I belonged and belong to].

In the post "Constitutional Scholar Vacula," Traddy took a picture from my Facebook profile and photoshopped it with the word "LOSER" at the bottom. In this post, he took a comment I made from the -- at the time -- NEPA Freethought Society message board on meetup. In his post "VICTORY!" Traddy, noted a status from my Facebook feed in which I announced I would be on local radio. In "Just Because...," Traddy, taking a photo from my meetup.com profile and posting it, encouraged readers to "Send me some Christmas cheer" listing my e-mail addresses and thanking "St. Mary's of Dorrance Parishoner" for the information. Finally, in "Come Together," Traddy considered giving me the "Scumbag of the Day" award.

In another post on Traddy's blog, he noted where I would be on December 26, 2009 -- at an atheist meeting in a restaurant -- and suggested that people seemingly boycott the restaurant for having us. Traddy wrote, of Rodano's, "So, Rodano's allows them to hold their meetings free of charge. If anyone feels like calling Rodano's at [#] be sure to tell them they've lose your business, for catering to groups like the "freethought" people. If they can offer them a place to meet for free, they apparently don't need your business."

Before any of this, I became a target of hate by many students at the Catholic school I attended for the atrocity of wanting to start a Secular Student Alliance chapter on campus. I had people scream in my face, write nasty messages on my Facebook page, create hate groups online, harass me while I was working, and so much more... all of this, again, with the knowledge that this would be a possibility.

In late 2011, my Aunt Lori -- presumably following her reading my website posted on my Facebook page about how she "will show everyone the proof" and "so will [my family]" that I am Roman Catholic because I was a devout Catholic when I was younger. She notes, "alter boy ccd classes church every Sunday...and even Ash Wednesday...gave up candy remember....even got baptised." She said she thinks I am "doing this 4 attention" and "need a reality check" before telling me to "get a real job," character attacking my father, telling me I will be -- as she says -- "a nothing" like him and "a bum." After hearing from another family member about this, I was told that my Aunt Lori started to tell lies to my mother which lead to my mother crying on my cell phone voicemail...and me being homeless - not allowed back into my mother's house and with no place to live. I had to stay in an apartment for much longer than I was legally able to, had to leave at 5AM for about two weeks during inspections to avoid being 'caught,' and -- after I was eventually 'caught,' my only option of living, as I had very little money and lack of people who would take me in with that lack of money, was with an elderly woman my father did odd jobs for. I had to live there for months and finally, after a grueling period of intense drama, was able to move back in with my mother following my first semester of graduate school in which I lived on financial aid money and had to pay $425 a month in rent.

Previous to my Aunt Lori's comments -- very mild in relation to those of another aunt which I will detail here -- my Aunt Carol, on her Facebook page and the Facebook page of a cousin of mine, after read my website, had some 'kind words' for me including, "Stay the fuck off my wall fuck head go argue w/someone who wants to argue with you over you friggen shit! leave me the frig alone. When u grow up call me Aunt..until then leave me alone start trouble elsewhere" and, to my cousin, in regards to me, "He thinks GOD does not exist [...] go to the 7th floor [of a psychiatric ward] and visit him some day :D" Further, she said, "He Justin is so fucked up," "Anyone who knows him has to be desperate to associate with him," "let him waste away and go to the 7th floor," "ASSHOLE needs a SHRINK," called me "brain washed," and "SHRINK SHRINK SHRINK."

I was told to 'go back to my community of privilege and send my children to atheist schools,' that I was not welcome in the Harrisburg capital rotunda, that school systems are 'not mine' [and presumably are those of Christians or otherwise non-atheists], and that I owned a "sorry sign" and came with "a weak argument" ...all by Pennsylvania State Senator Anthony Williams at a 'school choice/school voucher' rally I protested with American Atheists. Also at the rally -- with hundreds of students and adults brought in by buses filling the rotunda on its many floors -- my sign was blocked by people who seemed to not tolerate my dissent. People bumped against me, surrounded me, and would not allow me to show my sign - all while a guard stood by. All of this happened, again, with the knowledge that there would be repercussions.

Later in that day in Harrisburg, while sitting in on a Pennsylvania House of Representatives session with the intention of taking notes and learning about government, I was coerced by an armed guard when I refused to stand for a governmental Christian sectarian prayer even though I was afforded the option to remain seated - the house speaker asks people to stand and a sign outside similarly asks. The bold action of remaining seated was impermissible that day. I did not even expect this to happen. The FFRF sent a letter, the prayer continues, and the policy which seems to allow armed guards to approach people and ask them to stand even though they have obviously remained seated and were aware of being asked to stand by the house speaker -- as far as I know -- has not changed.

A month later, following my very fair, documented, charitable, and personal attack free criticism of a local chiropractor who fuses theology with pseudoscience, I received legal threats from his fiancee'. Months later, after rebuking my graduate school for including 'energy medicine' and a subluxation chiropractor in student health fairs, I drew the ire of students whom I had classes with. Following that, my efforts to start a Secular Student Alliance group in an attempt to, among other things, meet with fellow like-minded students were squelched. Students -- most prominently officers and members of the LGBT group on campus -- who previously welcomed me with open arms rebuked me.

Most recently, I received threats from a county bus driver because I was successful -- with the help of the Freedom From Religion Foundation -- in removing "God Bless America" messages from the LED signs of county buses (which I very frequently rode and continue to ride) that were controlled by the drivers/bus company. I filed a police report and the driver was, according to the bus company, rebuked - although he was never fired from his position or, as far as I know, suspended.

---

Conclusion and clarification

Above is a sample of what I have encountered since late 2009 that could easily get a book-length treatment...and there will be much more to come, I am sure. These aren't just comments from 'random people/trolls on the internet,' but rather are comments from people in my community and beyond -- many of them legitimate/genuine/attached to a name -- who have made my life more difficult than it had to be ... largely because I was willing to take a public stand as an atheist. Not all of this is abuse or cyberstalking, but most of it -- especially considering the criterion Zvan proposes --  could be rightly called that. Unlike Zvan, though, I know what real cyberstalking and abuse is [because I have been the victim of it].

Once more, I don't condone nasty comments people make on the internet. I am not saying it is permissible or OK simply because one is a public figure, but rather am asserting that these things should be expected. If one cannot handle the nastiness, perhaps it should be time for that person to quit writing. Also important to note -- as has been a part of this extended conversation (although this isn't the post for revisiting other issues) -- is that women are stalked, abused, threatened, etc. in a much harsher and more realistic fashion than Zvan proposes. Those instances are quite legitimate reasons to claim abuse and cyberstalking, but from what little evidence Zvan provided, I don't see that she has much of a case.

I wonder...has Zvan ever had a reasonable reason to fear for her life because she writes on the internet? Have people followed her while walking or driving home in an attempt to catch her off guard and abuse her? Has Zvan ever had to stay in an undisclosed location with security? I don't think so. Zvan, instead, offers nasty comments on the internet...those indistinguishable from Youtube comments and likely coming from real honest to god trolls who seem tough behind a computer screen, but won't actually do anything, may simply be joking (whether or not anyone finds it funny), and certainly are not indicative of the 'atheist community' similarly to how comments on CNN articles aren't indicative of democrats or republicans.

If Stephanie would like to respond to this post or dispel my ignorance by offering some real threats and real cyberstalking she has received, I will be happy to link to her post right at the top here. Unlike Stephanie, I won't block people for dissenting. [I'm blocked on her blog.] Hopefully she doesn't consider this post to be cyberstalking or abuse...

My Twitter conversation with Rebecca Watson...and much more

Above are screen captures from Twitter in which I was responding to a conversation dealing with issues relating to Rebecca Watson failing to attend The Amazing Meeting because, in her own words, she was "called out as a problem" by D.J. Grothe [this post isn't about the merits of this evaluation, but I will assume it is true later in the post for sake of argument]. I proposed a hypothetical in my limited tweet to gauge what Rebecca Watson's response would be...and this was indicative of me, on Watson's account, telling her "what's best for [her] mental well-being." In this post, I will discuss the controversy surrounding sexual harassment and the discussion of such in addition to discussion of the above screen capture. I will also pursue and suggest options and attitudes, rather than failing to attend conventions, that atheists/skeptics can pursue. 

If you've been paying attention to my Facebook profile, Twitter feed, or the 'atheist/skeptic blogosphere,' you're likely aware that there have been many problems surrounding sexual harassment at atheist/skeptic conventions and the discussion surrounding said sexual harassment. To make a long story short and to avoid an extensive string of quoting people quoting people quoting people quoting people, D.J. Grothe -- the president of the James Randi Educational Foundation -- typed the following,

…this year only about 18% of TAM registrants so far are women, a significant and alarming decrease, and judging from dozens of emails we have received from women on our lists, this may be due to the messaging that some women receive from various quarters that going to TAM or other similar conferences means they will be accosted or harassed…I think this misinformation results from irresponsible messaging coming from a small number of prominent and well-meaning women skeptics who, in trying to help correct real problems of sexism in skepticism, actually and rather clumsily themselves help create a climate where women — who otherwise wouldn’t — end up feeling unwelcome and unsafe, and I find that unfortunate.

Following this comment and various others, Rebecca Watson -- shown above in the Twitter screen capture -- wrote a lengthy post titled "Why I won't be at TAM this year" in which she wrote, among other things (read the post itself for full details),

So it’s odd for me to be announcing that I will not attend TAM this year, because I do not feel welcomed or safe and I disagree strongly with the recent actions of the JREF president, DJ Grothe.
DJ was blaming women skeptics for creating an unwelcoming environment. I found that claim astonishing, since I was only aware of women speaking frankly about their own experiences and their own feelings. I couldn’t imagine that DJ would be literally blaming the victim for speaking out.  

Watson continued,

This is quite obviously not a safe space for me or for other women who want to be free of the gendered slurs and sexual threats and come-ons we experience in our day-to-day lives. But apparently, DJ thinks I am lying about that, since apparently my feeling that the freethought community is not a safe space is “misinformation.” I should apparently put on a smile and pretend it doesn’t happen, because by reporting on my treatment, I am creating “a climate where women — who otherwise wouldn’t — end up feeling unwelcome and unsafe.” 

DJ says I am the one doing that. Me, who has never discouraged people from attending TAM and in fact has given thousands of dollars to the JREF in order to send more and more women to the event. Me, who has never said that TAM is a dangerous place for women. I’m the problem.

Let's grant, for sake of argument, that Rebecca Watson's evaluation of the situation (that she is indeed being blamed by Grothe, atheist/skeptic conventions are not safe spaces, and that her interpretation of Grothe's comments is accurate) is a flawless interpretation. Should this, though, be a good reason for Rebecca Watson (and other female or even male skeptics) to fail to attend atheist/skeptic conventions? Do better options exist?

It should be quite uncontroversial to assert that there is disagreement -- ranging from minor to severe -- amongst individuals in the atheist/skeptic community. Some might not like person a's 'friendly approach' and believe that person z's focus on church/state issues is misplaced. Some, for example, might not like the tactics or comments of organization b...or perhaps might not be a fan of organization b's staff. Person c may similarly repulse some people for various reasons. Perhaps some people might not like the comments of person d. Maybe it's the case that people view atheist/skeptic speakers as 'too militant' and claim that their strategies are counter-intuitive. Maybe it's the case that people view atheist/skeptic speakers as 'too accomodating' and claim that their strategies are counter-intuitive. Whatever. One can't be happy with all of the organizers, leaders, representatives, etc. in the atheist/skeptic movement and might even have serious disagreements with some particular individuals or organizations ranging from what one construes as personal attacks to minor disagreements about focus...so should an effective response, then, be to pull support from a convention in whatever manner one elects?

In an attempt to see if Rebecca Watson's logic -- not attending a convention because, as her chief complaint seems to be, she has an extreme disagreement with one of the convention's organizers -- should be applied for everyone or anyone in cases in which there is an extreme disagreement or when one has been told -- as I noted -- 'really shitty things,' I sent a Tweet to her with a hypothetical statement reading, "I've been told really shitty things from rep's of an atheist organization. Should I also not go to those cons?" Her reply was, "Like seriously, what gave you the right to tell me what's best for my mental well-being? Fuck that." 

Admittedly, I didn't have high hopes of a genuine conversation [one in which both persons are open to discussion, receptive of criticism, willing to 'step back' and self-reflect when faced with objections] coming from Watson because my attempt in the past to express skepticism with her reasoning* did not yield a genuine conversation on her behalf, but rather led to her distorting what I was saying, levying personal attacks, and similarly employing 'mind reading tactics.' I felt it, though, necessary to express skepticism in this case because the situation has gotten really out of hand from many 'sides.'

It should be quite apparent that Watson didn't answer my question posed in the above tweet and distorted what I was saying. It also seems to be the case that she was employing 'mind reading tactics' in which she was attempting to gauge my intentions (on her account, my telling her what is best for her mental well-being) when all she had to work with was a simple tweet with less than 200 characters (and, to be fair, I've commented on the issue before, but in no instance was I 'telling her what is best for her mental well-being'). I  failed to receive a 'yes,' 'no,' or some commentary that seemed to address my question, but rather was met with Watson implying that I am telling her how to feel [and strangely questioning my 'right' (whatever that means) to express skepticism. I have no idea what this means because I obviously don't lack the ability to type something and I don't find any good reason to suggest that my expressing skepticism is an improper invasive thing to do especially considering it seems to be the case that Watson is publicly claiming Grothe (although by using sarcasm) is suggesting she 'put on a smile' and not talk about sexual harassment].

Watson, by the available evidence (although admittedly limited although perhaps sufficient enough to draw conclusions) seemed to have a previously-held bias when encountering criticism of those who question her; instead of being open to the possibility of people engaging on an honest inquiry, she assumed that those who disagree with her or express skepticism have malicious intentions in which they are expressing what is best for her mental well-being (and know what is best for others) or -- more simply -- telling her how to feel. Watson apparently, at least in this case, is assuming that disagreement people express is an attack and a suggestion that other people know what is best for her. The abilities to self-reflect and challenge one's ideas quite unfortunately seem to be lacking in this situation...and that's quite interesting because I have written at length about how people I have encountered or have encountered my work -- often closed-minded theists -- construe disagreement as disrespect and an attack on one's character while jumping to wild conclusions about the intentions of others.

Criticism of Watson's ideas, it seems, at least in this situation, is out-of-bounds, impermissible, and automatically means that people who are raising objections are telling others how to feel. Of course it can't possibly be the case that someone sees a flaw with her reasoning, poses a reductio ad absurdum to help her perhaps discover this flaw, wants to express some skepticism to better understand her position, or perhaps wants to pose a defeater to a certain course of action (I can use sarcasm, too). 

--

Simply put, if the correct or advisable course of action (such that Watson is taking) -- when following extreme disagreement with someone involved with a convention -- is to stay home and refuse to attend [and many women would be justified in responding similarly], convention attendance would go sharply down, less women would be represented at atheist/skeptic conventions (isn't this the goal?), less new convention attendees come out, less community building is possible, etc. Other options -- and better options -- exist.

Amidst the entire discussion about sexual harassment at conventions, one should assume (and quite uncontroversially so), that sexual harassment happens at conventions (much of it, I would wager, being unreported) and that certain 'creepers' exist. Said 'creepers' exist in the skeptic community and -- no matter how much education -- people are going to behave really poorly. It's obviously the case that some people -- whether the situation is a gaming, atheist, skeptic, or science convention -- are going to behave poorly/that incidents are going to happen and, if they don't happen, there's a chance that they will - this is an assumed danger for mostly all people. A better response, then, it seems -- or at least some ideas I and others have -- should be proactive behavior such as staying in groups with friends, being vigilant and unafraid to confront harassers, remove yourself from hostile or unwelcome situations, notifying security/convention organizers of problems, and pressing (and rightfully so) convention organizers to have firm policies and make sure to keep records of complaints.

I additionally wonder...if Watson's prime reason for not attending TAM is, as it seems to be, extreme disagreement with someone who plays a major role in a convention, would people be similarly justified in failing to attend [and perhaps even encouraging others to not attend] conventions in which Watson has a major role? Should people sit home and fail to attend conventions in which Watson is a part of because they have extreme disagreements with her? It's obviously the case that I have extreme disagreements with Watson (on this issue and many more), but should my course of action -- in light of the extreme disagreement -- be to have nothing to do with conventions in which she plays a major role? I think not. If you similarly think not, why should Watson's reasoning be justified/an appropriate reaction?

To perhaps 'test' this, I asked Watson if I should stay home and refuse to attend conventions because I disliked the comments of, as I proposed, Lawrence Krauss (and this is the case because of his outright dismissal of philosophy and philosophers at American Atheists' 2012 convention although he later clarified following a wide deal of criticism). Her response, not addressing my question, was "Yah, remember that time you gave Lawrence Krauss $10k & then he called you out as a problem? That was rough." Perhaps Watson's disagreement with Grothe is made more severe in light of, as she says, a donation of $10,000 dollars [and in previous instances a high level of support for Grothe's initiatives]? This is interesting to consider. I responded writing, "Would the situation really be so much different if you hadn't contributed 10k? Wouldn't you similarly be upset." To that, I got no response...and ended up -- as it seems -- being blocked by Watson on Twitter.

As sexual harassment continues to be a problem and individuals continue to disagree with leaders in the skeptic/atheist movement, the response of failing to attend conventions (and seemingly discouraging others to attend) doesn't appear to be a proper response. Interestingly enough, failing to attend conventions when one was previously likely to attend seems to -- as was initially the point of contention -- make the problem of women being lowly represented at conventions worse - and it's not because Watson spoke up about harassment, but rather how she handled the situation when other what seem to be more viable and effective options/responses exist for her to deal with conflict, harassment, and problems in the atheist/skeptic community (especially considering she has such big platform/audience). Although I don't have the financial means to do so at the moment (and because of some other considerations preventing my participation), I would love to attend TAM ... and also participate in other conventions with people in the skeptic/atheist community although I might have severe disagreements with people who play major roles in them. I can perhaps tolerate others' behavior, perhaps be angry and ignore, and/or simply realize that there exist people with whom I have severe disagreements while also understanding said people reach particular people and do a tremendous amount of good (even considering some instances of bad) for society. 

* This wouldn't be the first time in which Rebecca Watson failed to engage in a fair discussion. In the past -- when I expressed skepticism about a claim made by Rebecca Watson and talked about by many others in the atheist/skeptic community -- it seemed that my efforts were a waste of time; I gained no insight, commenters who responded to me didn't really seem to answer what I was saying, and Rebecca Watson didn't seem to be willing to have a thoughtful discussion that was a charitable reading of my comments. ...and in this case, we weren't limited to short tweets...and there was an extended conversation. When I voiced skepticism about the general assertion that a poll with five men is indicative of a sexist pollmaker or otherwise an instance of someone 'forgetting about women,' I was told that I have a 'pretty sad problem' and that 'I couldn't think of a single woman.' Later clarification of the 'I couldn't think of a single woman' phrase were followed with 'I decided not to,' that I 'didn't know women were half of the population,' and what seemed to be threats of banning because of my "evasion and general thick-headedness." Following me stating lack of a woman in a poll of five persons doesn't seem to be a huge problem because of the small size of the poll, Watson claimed that I believe there should be 25 men on a poll before one woman was included.

Tebow 3:16 - God Doesn’t Help Tebow Win

This post is from a guest contributer who wishes to remain anonymous.

This Tebow thing is really getting out of hand. I thought it might have ended when his winning streak ended and the Broncos lost to the Patriots, but in this weekend’s wild card game, it happened again. Tebow threw about a 10 yard pass through dropped coverage that was run 70 yards for a touchdown in the first play of overtime. This meant, given NFL rules, the Steelers wouldn’t even get a possession to try to answer, so the Broncos advanced into the playoffs…to play the Patriots, again.

As you probably know, Tebow is the starting quarterback for the Denver Broncos. They have had a 'string of luck' lately—quite a few comeback, fourth quarter, and overtime wins. Of course, in the NFL, unlikely and quirky wins happen all the time. And when they do, people are usally critical. When teams win by barely beating teams with comebacks after quarters of terrible play, most people aren’t keen on singing your praises. Things, though, are different with Tebow. Why? Because he’s Christian. I mean really REALLY Christian. He was home schooled, so he has really had his religious beliefs beaten into him. He hosts an evangelically motivated website, 'wrote' similarly motivated books and has helped with his father’s missionary work in the Philippines... to help circumcise impoverished children. He also appeared in a pro-life commercial during the 2011 Super Bowl. When Tebow played for the Florida Gators, he wrote Bible verse references in his eye paint. Eye paint messages are not allowed in the NFL, but as a Bronco, Tebow has been regularly seen bowing down in petitionary prayer during games’ crucial moments and in prayers of gratitude right after touchdowns, often pointing up to heaven as he stands up, mouthing the words “thank you.” (This is now known as “Tebowing.”) As a result, many are inclined—without hyperbole—to attribute Bronco winning streaks to divine intervention.

The notion that the Bronco wins are a result of divine intervention has received a lot of attention. Saturday Night Live made fun of the notion the night before the Broncos lost to the Patriots in the regular season. Conan O’Brien reenacted the overtime pass against the Stealers with his peanut players having the hand of Jesus come down and guide the football into the receiver’s hand. ()

But to many—in fact to most—it’s not a joke; people who think that God is involved in Tebow’s wins are not joking and really think God is helping Tebow win. If you have any Christian football fans as Facebook friends, you know what I am talking about. If you watch a game, you will see many signs around the stadium that say “we believe.” Although they may simply have 'faith in their team,' the message seems to be more specific. They believe that Tebow has bestowed God’s favor onto the Broncos and that it will take them to the Super Bowl. Colorado pastor Wayne Hanson -- who has some connections to Tebow’s family -- just came right out and said it, “It’s not luck. Luck isn’t winning 6 games in a row. It’s favor. God’s favor.” Countless media outlets have echoed these thoughts.

The most recent game added to the hype. According to an ABC affiliate, Tebow passed for 316 yards, averaged 31.6 yards per completion, and the ratings for the game peaked at 31.6 at the very moment that Tebow threw the game winning touchdown. A Bible verse that Tebow often painted in his eye black when he was a Gator was (you guessed it) John 3:16. It is often considered the quintessential evangelical Bible verse. This has many seriously wondering whether God had a hand in the game’s stats. Since the NFL bans messages painted in eye black, could God be sending his own message? If so, it worked. “John 3:16,” according to the article, was the number one Google search on Monday, getting more hits than it ever has.

But does Tebow really think that God has a hand in his wins? Many Tebow fans want to deny this and say that he’s just thanking God for his talents while he is “Tebowing,” but it is quite difficult to maintain such a position given the evidence that Tebow gives us. When you always bow down in prayer during crucial moments of the games, and then when things go right you stand up, point to the sky, and say “thank you,” what else could you be doing but asking God for help and then thanking him once you get it? Why would you be thanking God for the chance to play or for your talents, in the most vital moments of the game? Is Tebow ecstatically jumping up and down after beating the Steelers, and then bowing down, thinking to himself “I’m so glad I’m talented. Thank Jesus?” In answer to a question about the Broncos' overtime win over Chicago, Tebow said, "I believe in a big God and special things can happen." Tebow may even believe that a Super Bowl win is preordained by God. "It's not necessarily prophesying, but sometimes you can feel God has a big plan,” he said. Tebow thinks God has a hand in his wins.

Bill O’Reilly, in an interview back in June, asked Tebow, “Do you pray for victory?” Tebow replied,

You know, I think He honestly does care about how we play on the field, more than anything more than win or lose our hearts on the field. On the field I'm trying to play for the glory of God but then also I'm trying to give everything I have and win and compete. And so I think more than just winning or losing, I think He cares about where our hearts are when we're playing.

Well, at least God has his priorities in order. According to Tebow, God cares more about 'Tebow’s heart' when he is playing than whether he wins. But he clearly still cares whether he wins. It’s really hard to deny that Tebow indeed does think God has a hand in his victories.

Even if Tebow doesn’t believe, his teammates do—teammates like Wesley Woodyard. He recounted to Mark Kiszla at the Denver Post Tebow’s message to him.

Tebow came to me and said, 'Don't worry about a thing,' because God has spoken to him." After Woodyard ripped the ball from Chicago's Marion Barber’s hand to prevent him from winning the game, Woodyard believes too. "I gave him a big hug,” said Woodyard, “and told him thank you. God speaks to people to reach other people.

If you want to think that Tebow doesn’t believe that God has a hand in his wins, fine. I’ve said enough about that, but it’s undeniable that a number of people do believe. They think that God is altering the outcome of his games—right down to the number of yards he passes for, to make people Google John 3:16. It’s this issue I want to examine. Is it rational to believe that God intervenes in Tim Tebow’s football games?

The simple answer is a resounding no. In fact, such a belief is about as irrational as you can get. Let’s talk about those “316” stats first.

They are interesting, but not remarkable. From what I can tell, they are accurate. He did throw for 316 yards. But he also completed 10/21 passes. Divide 316 by 10, and you get 31.6. So it’s not really two different independent occurrences of “316” because one derives from the other. But, although the overnight household ratings for the game were 25.9/46, the game did peak at 31.6/46 from 8:00-8:15 PM, ET. Although, Tebow was making his pass around that time, I highly doubt that the ratings spike happened at the moment that Tebow made the pass, as was reported above. It was probably after, when the 'Twitterverse' lit up with 9000 tweets a second, and more people tuned in as a result.

Thinking the “316” coincidences entail divine intervention is thinking at its most uncritical. What are the odds that Tebow would pass for exactly 316? Not that great. Chances the ratings would peak at 31.6 on the same night? Even lower. But, given the number of games that Tebow has played, will play, and the number of stats that are kept in NFL games, it is a guarantee that eventually one of his stats would equal some number that people would find significant. Maybe he could complete 4/16 passes in homage to Philippians 4:16, another bible verse that Tebow has painted in his eye black. (I hadn’t heard anyone claiming 3:16 is his favorite verse until now.) And it wouldn’t be too hard to find another instance of those numbers hiding in the slew of stats for any given game.

The fallacy involved in this kind of thinking involves anomaly hunting and a selection bias—we look for something remarkable, remember what we found, and forget all the unremarkable things we passed over. Sure, 316 yards is interesting…but how many stats, over all the games, have been completely insignificant? We don’t remember those. Just like when a psychic medium gets something right, and we remember it—and we forget the twenty other things that she just said that have nothing to do with anything. Keep looking and eventually you’ll find what you want.

But something else is very wrong with the “316 yards—it’s a sign!” mentality. Think about what it really entails. To get Tebow to throw exactly 316 yards, God would have had to control every minute detail of the game. Anyone going anywhere they are not supposed to, catching a throw they are not supposed to catch, or where they are not supposed to catch it, would ruin it all. The idea that God reaches down from heaven to make sure that Tebow’s pass gets to the receiver to win the game is already ridiculous enough—so ridiculous that when Conan portrays it literally on his show, we laugh out loud. But to think that God is directing every little aspect of a football game to make sure that Tebow gets 316 yards in exactly 10 throws [so when it’s divided by 10 the numbers don’t change] is just so stupid.

Not to mention—is God making everyone turn their TV on so that he gets exactly the 31.6 rating that he wants? Whatever happened to free will?

Many religious people will argue that, indeed, God does control every aspect of the game—and that he did make you turn on your TV. Why? Because God controls everything. So the idea that God has a hand in Tebow’s wins, and the 316 stats, is not crazy at all. Instead, it simply follows logically from the fact that God exists, they suggest.

But this is a highly controversial and widely criticized view of God and his nature. The idea that God predestines everything that occurs (including who goes to heaven, and who goes to hell) was argued for by John Calvin. But the idea runs afoul of many bible verses, not to mention many Christian ideas—like the fact that we are morally responsible for what we do. If everything I do, I do merely because God preordained—predetermined—that I would do it, then how is anything I do my fault? I can’t do anything but what God ordained I would do and the reason I do it ultimately has nothing to do with me or my decisions. If God makes me do it, then I’m not morally responsible. We usually wouldn’t think that you are morally responsible if you had to do something because someone had a gun pointed at your head. How much more so if God is literally controlling you like a puppet?

This idea also runs afoul of a common Christian apologetic move. The problem of evil asks how God could exist when there is so much evil in the world. A common reply is that the evil in the world is not the work of God—it is our work. We cause evil by our own free choices. Not all evil is the result of our free choices—no one has ever caused a tornado. So this solution doesn’t completely answer the problem. But it can’t solve anything if all our actions are predetermined by God. We can’t cause any evil if God makes us do what we do—if he does all our causing for us. Certainly, you can’t shift any blame off of God, onto us, for the evil in the world, if God predetermines all of it to happen.

Now, of course, football players’ performances are most often morally neutral—they aren’t out there causing good or evil. But here’s the thing. Christians maintain that when God doesn’t intervene in our free will decisions to prevent evil, like 9/11, it’s because free will is important. It must be protected and preserved. What, then, are we to make of the suggestion that God interferes with the free will of football players to make sure that a particular team wins? We must think it is absurd. If preventing 9/11 is not more important than preserving free will, certainly a football win is not either—no, not even a Tebow win. Not even if the win is a means by which God draws attention to himself or a bible verse.

To make things worse, the kind of reasoning that people are employing to conclude that God is helping Tebow is the worst kind. In a nutshell, it is an appeal to ignorance. An appeal to ignorance occurs when one interjects a supernatural explanation for something that they can’t explain. This happens when people conclude that Criss Angel is magic because they can’t explain how he does his tricks. [Criss Angel is actually very honest about the fact that he is an illusionist, and has no supernatural powers—just like all magicians don’t.] But what’s more likely: no natural explanation or that you simply can’t think of one?

But it’s worse than that because the events for which people are invoking supernatural explanations don’t even need supernatural explanations. They are not miraculous; they are not violations of the natural order. If one of Tebow’s passes had disappeared in mid-air and then just appeared in the arms of a receiver in the end zone—then you might have something. But fourth quarter comebacks and overtime wins happen all the time—not to mention 316 yard stats. (Just Google it and see how many other 316 yard passing games you can find.)

Concluding that Tebow threw 316 yards because God made him is like concluding that prime empty spot in a parking lot is a result of divine intervention. Sure, it’s possible that God could have caused whoever parked there to cut their shopping trip to Wal-Mart short so they would leave and vacate a spot just when you needed it. But what’s more likely—divine intervention or the simple fact that someone with a good spot left Wal-Mart of their own accord around the time that you arrived? It is more likely that God intervened in the game to make sure that Tebow threw exactly 316 yards or that, just like hundreds of quarterbacks before him, Tebow simply threw for 316 yards?

The fact that people are really taking this seriously, I’m afraid, only reveals the childishness of religious thinking. Non-religious people are not drawing this conclusion. And, to be fair, not all religious people are either. (Rev. Alan Rundick denies it, but also thinks that Tebow denies it too. But there is a particular brand of religious person who takes this seriously and I think this demonstrates the kind of childish thinking that is involved in this kind of religion. Children think magicians are magic, adults know they are illusionists. Children are fascinated by history channel specials on Nostradamus, adults know that it’s all retrodiction. Children can be fascinated by the fact that Tebow threw for 316 yards, but adults should not.

But I also think this reveals the kind of god that these people worship. For the god that they revere, given the kind of things they think he does, it makes perfect sense to them that God would make Tebow throw for 316 yards. It also probably makes sense to them that God would free up a spot in the parking lot for them. Nietzsche spoke of such a god in his work, “The Antichrist.”

…what shall we do when [believers]… use the finger of God to convert their miser ably commonplace and huggermugger existence into a miracle of grace, a providence and an experience of salvation? The most modest exercise of the intellect, not to say of decency, should certainly be enough to convince these interpreters of the perfect childishness and unworthiness of such a misuse of the divine digital dexterity. However small our piety, if we ever encountered a god who always cured us of a cold in the head at just the right time, or got us into our carriage at the very instant heavy rain began to fall, he would seem so absurd a god that he’d have to be abolished even if he existed. God as a domestic ser vant, as a letter carrier, as an almanac-manat bottom, he is a mere name for the stupidest sort of chance....

If he were writing today, Nietzsche would have also mentioned football games.

A god who simply stands in for explanations of chance occurrences—especially chance occurrences that are bound to happen eventually anyway—is a childish invention, unworthy of worship. Christians who invoke God to explain Tebow’s success, who think that God even cares about football games, much less intervenes in them, do themselves and their entire religion a disservice. They trivialize God, trivialize religious belief, and they revitalize Tebow’s success.


P.S. Some have suggested that Tebow, and those like him,don’t pray to win—they just pray for everyone in the game to be safe and injury-free. There are three things to say about this: (1) He’s not doing that when he is bowing down on the sideline as the kicker lines up for the winning field goal. (2) God’s doing a pretty crappy job of keeping everyone safe, given the rise of concussions in football and the average survival rate of NFL players. (3) Praying for everyone in the game to be safe makes just about as much sense as praying for a win. Players are injured by the actions of others players. To keep everyone safe, God would have to make all the players be just where he wanted them to be—in other words, we would have to interfere with their free will. And, as we discussed above, he doesn’t do that. Unless you are asking God to not snap the cables of the overhead camera and make it fall on someone for shits and giggles, praying for safety at a football game doesn’t make much sense.

Local reader argues naturalistic worldview is inadequate

I authored a letter to the editor titled “Natural Explanation for Flood Prevention” which was a response to a published article in which a local reverend claimed that prayer had something to do with stopping the September flooding in Northeastern Pennsylvania. I argued, in less than 250 words, that naturalistic explanations are better than supernatural explanations and, when we have a perfectly reasonable naturalistic explanation, we ought to reject a supernatural explanation. I quoted Theodore Shick in the letter who said, among other things, “You shouldn't assume the existence of anything that's not needed to explain the phenomena.”

A letter to the editor published on December 11 – approximately a month after mine was published – titled “Life explanation rests with God” argues that my “naturalistic world view is inadequate to explain the bigger questions of life” and “A good hypothesis such as the God of the Bible provides a consistent metaphysical foundation for explaining the important realities and phenomena encountered in life.”

Here is the letter that was published:

Life’s explanation rests with God

In a recent letter, Justin Vacula discussed Occam’s razor, explaining phenomena with the fewest assumptions and using a theory that has the most explanatory power.

I submit that he is wrong about prayer and supernatural intervention. His naturalistic world view is inadequate to explain the bigger questions of life.

The naturalistic atheistic model holds that (a) the universe was created from nothing; (b) life came from non-life; (c) persons came from the impersonal; (d) minds come from the mindless; (e) order from the orderless; (f) reason from the non-rational; (g) morality from the non-moral; (h) information without a sender; (i) code from a nonprogrammer; (j) truth from an accident.

The biblical theistic model holds (a) that the universe was created by a Creator; (b) that life comes from ultimate Life; (c) persons come from the Superpersonal; (d) minds come from the ultimate Mind; (e) order comes from an Orderer; (f) reason comes from a rational Being; (g) morality comes from a moral Person; (h) information comes from a Sender; (i) code comes from a personal Programmer; (j) truth comes from ultimate Truth.

I invite the reader to examine both models to see which has the greatest explanatory power. A good hypothesis such as the God of the Bible provides a consistent metaphysical foundation for explaining the important realities and phenomena encountered in life.

(a) God uniquely accounts for the physical universe’s beginning; (b) God uniquely accounts for the ordered complexity and the design evident in the universe; (c) God uniquely accounts for the reality of abstract nonphysical realities such as numbers, which are the foundation of mathematics and which are not explainable in terms of physical matter and its processes; (d) God uniquely accounts for the meaning, purpose and significance that human beings sense and yearn for; (e) God uniquely accounts for man’s sense of the design.

Without meaning and purpose, the naturalistic atheistic model leads to angst, despair, dread and ultimate extinction of human beings.

I submit it is better to be “standing on the promises of God” than the idea that everything came from nothing.

James U. Sinclair

Wright Township

The third paragraph of his letter to the editor posits “the naturalistic atheistic model” which the writer says “hold that (a) the universe was created from nothing; (b) life came from non-life; © persons came from the impersonal; (d) minds come from the mindless; (e) order from the orderless; (f) reason from the non-rational; (g) morality from the non-moral; (h) information without a sender; (I) code from a nonprogrammer; (j) truth from an accident.

The phrase “naturalistic atheistic model” should be the first red flag here. The reader uses a certain term and seemingly posits what all naturalists (those who believe that the natural world is all that exists) believe when there is no 'unifying dogma' or 'set beliefs' for atheists or naturalists because there is often disagreement on issues. It is also important to note that not all atheists are naturalists and not all naturalists are atheists. Do all naturalists and atheists believe what the reader posits, are the points even relevant, and are there fundamental misunderstandings taking place?

Contention A, right from the start, is problematic because there is wide disagreement about the origin of the universe. Personally, I do not know where to stand on matters of 'becoming' regarding the universe, but the Big Bang is certainly an adequate model to describe the expansion of the universe and the start of time as we know it.

When someone asks, “What happened before the Big Bang?” I often respond by saying, “If the Big Bang is the start of time as we know it, how can we talk about 'before time?” and, after some further discussion when God is typically invoked, say “If God is uncaused and you use God to explain the universe, why can't I say that the universe was uncaused or there is an unknown cause?” Claiming that God was the cause of the universe when lacking an explanation appears to be what is called the argument from ignorance or the 'god of the gaps' argument – because we lack an explanation, theists believe they are justified in positing God to answer the question. This method of reasoning, of course, is fallacious; just because we happen to lack an explanation does not mean that one can be justified in saying “God did it.” Why not say, “I don't know” and continue research and/or suspend judgment until there is a solid answer?

Naturalists need not posit that “the universe was created from nothing,” but rather can offer other explanations or simply suspend judgment on the matter.

Contention B, I would wager, is something that a vast majority of naturalists (if not almost all of them) would believe, but this is not a problematic assertion. When considering questions of the origins of life, answers are not always clear or well-defined as some (including myself) would like them to be, but this is not a problem once we start considering probability. Consider the vastness of the universe, all of the stars that explode and emit elements, and the age of the universe. Of all the 'chances' that could have lead to life, the probability seems quite high that life, somewhere and somehow, would originate. We, of course, are the lucky ones who happen to be experiencing life today. The Miller/Urey experiments, for those interested, show that life can indeed come from non-life. Additionally, Craig Venter has created synthetic life.

A lack of explanation regarding exactly how life arose from non-life does not justify belief in God, but rather should lead us to pursue further research and not assume that God “had to intervene” or have some part in the process just because we might lack an explanation.

Contention C is interesting because I am not quite sure what it means. The idea of person, as I understand it, is a philosophical concept similar to 'identity' in which we ascribe labels to homo sapiens. Are persons 'coming' from anything? It seems not. Personhood is simply an idea and a label we put on human beings. Perhaps the letter writer will elaborate on this.

Contention D claims that naturalists believe that minds come from the mindless, but there is disagreement regarding theories of mind amongst naturalists; there is not one 'set' idea that naturalists must believe. Some naturalists, for example, are eliminative materialists - those who believe that there is no mind, but only the brain.

Mindedness and consciousness may still have some 'gaps' and it might be the case that there is much understanding that is currently not had, but this, once again, does not allow one to justifiably posit God because we lack an explanation.

Contention E claims that “order comes from the orderless.” What we call 'order' is something we view as having some sort of regularity or 'rhyme and rhythm.' When considering the laws of the universe that are guaranteed regularities that arise from the Big Bang, it's quite easy to understand order under a naturalistic worldview. This “sense of design” that the letter writer later mentions is us, as humans, seeing what might rightly be called 'illusions of design' throughout the universe when, instead of assuming design, we can just say 'regularities.'

Contention F posits that naturalists believe reason comes from the non-rational. While the earliest forms of life almost certainly did not have reasoning abilities like humans have today, we can consider an evolutionary perspective and understand quite easily why reasoning abilities would evolve, be beneficial for survival, and be useful.

Alvin Plantinga famously argues that naturalism is not compatible with evolution because, roughly, evolution is not 'concerned' with justified true beliefs, but rather for survival. This argument, though, seems to miss the mark. Those with good reasoning abilities, in times of early hominids, would be better suited for survival. Holding a justified true belief, for example, [that was the product of good reasoning abilities] would allow one to efficiently and accurately gather water, hunt for food in desirable areas, and so much more. Over time, those with good reasoning abilities would survive and those with bad reasoning abilities would die. Of course, not all 'bad reasoners' would die because some can get lucky and be smart in some areas while not-smart in others.

Contention G posits that naturalists believe that morality comes from the non-moral. Not all naturalists will ascribe to notions of morality and may be moral nihilists. Some naturalists also might argue that morality is relative: it differs from person to person and from culture to culture and therefore there are no moral truths or any standing to make a claim about morality. Personally, I use the term 'morality' as short-hand language to describe many things: what actions would be appropriate and inappropriate in certain situations, what actions should lead us to a better society, how we are to treat others, etc.

On a naturalistic view, morality is very plausible. Just on the topic of humans – and to not elaborate too much on this point – we can look around us and realize that other humans have the same basic needs, wants, values. and desires as us; other persons generally value their own lives and consider living to be much more desirable than not living, want to have meaningful relationships with others, want to be secure, and so much more. Because I generally do not want to experience harm, discomfort, and whatever else might make life undesirable and realize that others are like me, I want to behave in a fashion of respect toward other people and act as a functional member of society.

We need no gods to explain morality. It is odd to claim that morality 'comes' from something other than a product of reasoning and as an evolutionary by-product.

Contentions H and I, I believe, rest on a huge equivocation. The reader states that naturalists believe that information exists without a sender and code exists from a nonprogrammer. The reader doesn't elaborate on this, but I believe I understand what he is saying. Equivocation is an informal logical fallacy that occurs when someone tries to use a word two (or more) times, although with different definitions. The reader, I imagine, is thinking of 'programming' and 'code' relating to DNA and thinks that 'programming' and 'code' can only come from thinking beings. When persons talk of 'programming' and 'code' relating to DNA, they do not mean this in the sense that we usually refer to when speaking of computers. Persons talk of DNA as a code because the basic 'letters' of our genetic 'code' are present throughout us.

Finally, Contention J claims that naturalists believe “truth from an accident.” I am not sure what this means because we can use our reasoning faculties to arrive at truths without ever positing a God who had to establish these truths. Consider, for example, one of the laws of logic known as the law of non-contradiction which posits that something can not be both a and not-a. For example, a clock can not be both on the wall and not on the wall. This appears to be a truth and it is no accident; we understand that a clock can not be both on the wall and not on the wall for very good reasons that need not be explained.

We see that contentions A, B, D, and G are not contentions that all naturalists believe. Contention C appears to deal with a philosophical concept that has nothing to do with whether naturalism is reasonable or not. Regarding contention E, the reader believe that naturalism can't account for order, but this simply isn't the case. Naturalism, despite Plantinga's argument, can account for reason and thus 'dispels' contention F. Contentions H and I are based on equivocations and naturalistic perspectives can explain how the 'genetic code' functions without assuming a god. Naturalists can account for truths without appealing to a supernatural truth-maker, so contention J is 'out.'

Now that we see why the contentions the letter writer proposed are not problematic for naturalists, let's explore why theism can't account for certain phenomena and why the explanation of 'God' is a poor explanation.

The letter writer claims that “God uniquely accounts for the physical universe's beginning. How do we know this and better yet, how can we posit that a specific single god created the universe? Even if we were to admit that the universe has a cause, how are we to leap to a specific cause reason, for there, that the god of the Bible is responsible? For all we know, an all-evil god, a time traveler, a council of gods, or a civilization in a parallel universe could have created the universe. All of these hypotheses, while they may seem unreasonable, seem to me no more reasonable than belief in the god of the Bible. Once again, additionally, if the theist asserts that God was uncaused and an uncaused cause is adequate for explaining the origin of the universe, the atheist can rightly posit, while following this logic that the theist assumes, that an uncaused Big Bang is sufficient to explain the universe – and here we are not appealing to the supernatural and we understand that the Big Bang occurred.

The letter writer claims that “God uniquely accounts for the ordered complexity and the design evident in the universe.” Again, why ought the god of the Bible be more reasonable than other unlikely hypotheses? We don't need God to explain order and what we see as design in the universe because we can appeal to natural laws and understand order. Design is simply an illusion that is better explained with the term regularity; while the universe might seem like some sort of being created it because we see order, we need not assume that a being designed the universe.

The letter writer seemingly appeals to the Transcendental Argument for God (TAG) and writes, “God uniquely accounts for the reality of abstract nonphysical realities such as numbers which are the foundation of mathematics and which are not explainable in terms of physical matter and its processes.” Why does the reader assume that numbers are not explainable by physical processes? Numbers, it seems, are contingent upon humans; if humans did not exist, the concept of numbers would not exist. We use numbers as heuristic tools in order to talk about quantities – and the use of numbers is very useful in our everyday lives. Other “abstract nonphysical realities” such as laws of logic are not the product of human thinking and would remain true if all humans were to suddenly die – and this is so because objective truths are separate from us. “The truth is not concerned about what we think of it.”

Speaking of “abstract nonphysical realities,” I'd like to return to the law of non-contradiction and the idea of contradictions. We understand that reasoning breaks down if there were a contradiction and that those who hold contradictory beliefs are behaving in an irrational fashion. For example, if I tell you that I was working at Bill's Market from 8AM to 3PM and was sleeping at home from 8AM to 3PM, you'd be quite puzzled – and for good reason. I can't be both sleeping at home from 8AM to 3PM and working at Bill's Market from 8AM to 3PM. The law of non-contradiction and the concept of a contradiction might be an “abstract nonphysical reality,” but this can be adequately explained without appealing to God. We can quibble about whether we 'discovered' abstract non-physical entities or whether they are contingent (or something else), but this doesn't allow us to justly posit God as the only answer as to how to account for these things. For more on TAG, please listen to this debate.

The letter writer continues to state that “God uniquely accounts for the meaning, purpose, and significance that human beings sense and yearn for.” God has no monopoly on meaning, purpose, and significance. I dealt with this extensively in this post. I argued that whether or not God exists has no bearing on whether meaning can be found in life.

The letter writer writes, “God uniquely accounts for man's sense of design.” I don't understand how this is the case. It can be the case, though, that we look at the universe and consider it to be magnificent, do not understand how the universe can be like it is (especially in earlier times of humans), and believe, then, fallaciously, that a being must be designed it because it appears to be so complex. We see order and assume that God is responsible for the order. With increased knowledge from science, philosophy, and other disciplines, we understand that this thinking is fallacious and can posit naturalistic explanations instead of appealing to the supernatural.

The reader than makes quite an extravagant claim, “Without meaning and purpose, the naturalistic atheistic model leads to angst, despair, dread, and ultimate extinction of human beings.” This claim has no basis. Many naturalists and atheists, of course, are not wallowing in metaphysical anguish of angst, despair, and dread. How ought the 'naturalistic atheistic model' also lead to ultimate extinction of humans? Regardless, whether or not naturalism and atheism 'led' to dread does not show whether or not belief in naturalism or any supernatural entities is justified. This appears to simply be an argument from utility.

We see that belief in naturalism, the idea that all that exists is the natural world, is must more plausible than belief in God. Even if it is the case that naturalism can't account for some realities, this does not mean that one can suddenly 'inject God' and believe that belief in God is justified because naturalism can't account for a phenomena.