Freethought Without Forethought?, part 8 of 8

This is part eight of an eight part essay responding to Dan Barker and the Freedom From Religion Foundation (hereinafter FFRF). I will be considering their “Nontract” #11 “What Is A Freethinker?”

This segment serves as the “Why should I be happy to be a freethinker?” and “How can I support freethought?”.

Part 1: Introduction
Part 2: “How do freethinkers know what is true?”
Part 3: “Do freethinkers have a basis for morality?”
Part 4: “Do freethinkers have meaning in life?”
Part 5: “Doesn't the complexity of life require a designer?”
Part 6: “Why are freethinkers opposed to religion?” and “Hasn't religion done tremendous good in the world?”
Part 7: “Do freethinkers have a particular political persuasion?” and “Is atheism/humanism a religion?”
Part 8: “Why should I be happy to be a freethinker?” and “How can I support freethought?”

“Why should I be happy to be a freethinker?”
This seems like an odd question, which is answered thusly:

“Freethought is reasonable. Freethought allows you to do your own thinking. A plurality of individuals thinking, free from restraints of orthodoxy, allows ideas to be tested, discarded or adopted. Freethinkers see no pride in the blind maintenance of ancient superstitions or self-effacing prostration before divine tyrants known only through primitive ‘revelations.’ Freethought is respectable. Freethought is truly free.”

Psychology is certainly not my field and yet, I am fascinated by people who make such diligent attempts at denying that which they most certainly are. The first parts of the tract refute this latter part, as we have very clearly seen—the tract is internally inconsistent.

“How can I support freethought?”
Like any good tract (yes, I jest) this one ends with the atheist evangelist pleading for money and an invitation to convert “Join the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc.”
One claim made in this section is that part of the mission of the FFRF is “to educate the public about the views of nontheists.” I have written various essays that, sadly, demonstrate that Dan Barker and the FFRF are either unwilling or simply incapable of providing accurate information about what nontheists, in particular Judeo-Christian ones, believe.

They are simply not fit to take on the role of educators with regards to the views of nontheists, at least the Judeo-Christian ones. However, their publications are very useful as a study aid in understanding pseudo-skepticism, poor, lazy or non-existent scholarship, belligerent belittling besmirchment, and irrational illogical argumentation.

Continue reading Freethought Without Forethought?, part 8 of 8...

Freethought Without Forethought?, part 7 of 8

This is part seven of an eight part essay responding to Dan Barker and the Freedom From Religion Foundation (hereinafter FFRF). I will be considering their “Nontract” #11 “What Is A Freethinker?”

This segment serves as the “Do freethinkers have a particular political persuasion?” and “Is atheism/humanism a religion?”.

Part 1: Introduction
Part 2: “How do freethinkers know what is true?”
Part 3: “Do freethinkers have a basis for morality?”
Part 4: “Do freethinkers have meaning in life?”
Part 5: “Doesn't the complexity of life require a designer?”
Part 6: “Why are freethinkers opposed to religion?” and “Hasn't religion done tremendous good in the world?”
Part 7: “Do freethinkers have a particular political persuasion?” and “Is atheism/humanism a religion?”
Part 8: “Why should I be happy to be a freethinker?” and “How can I support freethought?”

“Do freethinkers have a particular political persuasion?”
In part, this section states,

“No, freethought is a philosophical, not a political, position. Freethought today embraces adherents of virtually all political persuasions, including…communists…There is no philosophical connection, for example, between atheism and communism…there have been communistic groups which were deeply religious, such as the early Christian church.”

Fine, Freethinkers may hail from every conceivable political position. Of course, when an argument is made that attempts to correlate atheism and communism no one has kibbutzim in mind, they have in mind the Communism who’s atheist leaders perpetrated the bloodies century in human history.

“Is atheism/humanism a religion?”
This section states,

“No. Atheism is not a belief. It is the ‘lack of belief’ in god(s). Lack of faith requires no faith. Atheism is indeed based on a commitment to rationality, but that hardly qualifies it as a religion. Freethinkers apply the term religion to belief systems which include a supernatural realm, deity, faith in ‘holy’ writings and conformity to an absolute creed. Secular humanism has no god, bible or savior. It is based on natural rational principles. It is flexible and relativistic—it is not a religion.”

It is interesting to note how pusillanimous atheists are of the very term “belief.” Note that the first sentence refers to “belief” and the second refers to “faith.” It appears to be an atheistic knee-jerk reaction, or prejudicial instinct, to instantly turn the word and or concept of “belief” into “faith” and therefore recoil from the very thought. Of course, “lack of belief in god(s)” is a belief namely, in God’s non-existence or belief that there is no evidence for God’s existence. Elsewhere, and as an intellectual exercise I have argued that atheism is a religion.

Dan Barker appears to not be taking into consideration some of his own previous statements. Even while affirming atheism’s irreligious status he makes various statement that, at least in part, correlate to his definition of religion: namely, conformity to an absolute creed as opposed to being flexible and relativistic. As we saw above, Dan Barker offers absolute, inflexible creeds that must be accepted in order to convert to and not be excommunicated from Freethough.

Also, as an intellectual exercise, I point out that:
Atheism has a supernatural realm: the multi-verse.


They have a deity: themselves or as the FFRF’s Annie Laurie Gaylor puts it (In Defense of “Godlessness”), “The only ‘higher power’ we can truly invoke lies in our own minds and our own intelligence.”

They have faith in holy writings in the form of books by their leaders: it may be Dan Barker and his alleged authority as an ex-preacher, Hippocrates (upon whom Reginald Finley relies) or Prof. Richard Dawkins whose book, The God Delusion, has become a response in and of itself—when I ask certain atheists a question they refer me to his book just short of a book-chapter-verse citation (I have responded to aspects his book dealing with the Bible here and dealing with altruism here). In fact, Prof. Richard Dawkins wrote that Sam Harris’ book, The End of Faith,

“is one of those books that deserves to replace the Gideon Bible in every hotel room in the land.”

And what is Sam Harris’ own view of his book, Letter to a Christian Nation? Apparently, it is another atheist proselytizing tract,

“It’s a book that a person could simply hand to a member of the religious Right and say, ‘What’s your answer to this?’”[1]

[1] Blair Golson, Sam Harris: The Truthdig Interview

Continue reading Freethought Without Forethought?, part 7 of 8...

Freethought Without Forethought?, part 6 of 8

This is part six of an eight part essay responding to Dan Barker and the Freedom From Religion Foundation (hereinafter FFRF). I will be considering their “Nontract” #11 “What Is A Freethinker?”

This segment serves as the “Why are freethinkers opposed to religion?” and “Hasn't religion done tremendous good in the world?”.

Part 1: Introduction
Part 2: “How do freethinkers know what is true?”
Part 3: “Do freethinkers have a basis for morality?”
Part 4: “Do freethinkers have meaning in life?”
Part 5: “Doesn't the complexity of life require a designer?”
Part 6: “Why are freethinkers opposed to religion?” and “Hasn't religion done tremendous good in the world?”
Part 7: “Do freethinkers have a particular political persuasion?” and “Is atheism/humanism a religion?”
Part 8: “Why should I be happy to be a freethinker?” and “How can I support freethought?”

“Why are freethinkers opposed to religion?”
This next section makes the following point:

“Freethinkers are convinced that religious claims have not withstood the tests of reason. Not only is there nothing to be gained by believing an untruth, but there is everything to lose when we sacrifice the indispensable tool of reason on the altar of superstition. Most freethinkers consider religion to be not only untrue, but harmful. It has been used to justify war, slavery, sexism, racism, homophobia, mutilations, intolerance, and oppression of minorities. The totalitarianism of religious absolutes chokes progress.”

To state that “religious claims have not withstood the tests of reason” is a statement that is conveniently vague and thus, meaningless. A religious claim may be that a male Jihadist will get 72 virgins by committing murder/suicide. But a religious claim can also be that the universe had a beginning.

“‘Come now, let us reason together,’ says the LORD” (Isaiah 1:18).

Another equally convenient, vague and meaningless statement is one that we could simply respond to by stating that secularism of every sort has been used to justify war, slavery, sexism, racism, homophobia, mutilations, intolerance, and oppression of minorities. The totalitarianism of secular absolutes chokes progress (consider, for example, that we are still supposed to believe quaint Victorian era ideas about life coming from non-life, etc.).

Dan Barker unfurling his holiday season prejudice,
“At this season of the Winter Solstice, may reason prevail.
There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell.
There is only our natural world.
Religion is but myth and superstition that
hardens hearts and enslaves minds”

“Hasn't religion done tremendous good in the world?”
The tract continues thusly,

“Many religionists are good people—but they would be good anyway.”

This is a mere baseless assertion, another meaningless convenient argument. Just how does Dan Barker know this? He does not. In fact, I can think of various examples of perfectly deplorable and dangerous personages who have become wonderful people strictly due to their coming to develop a relationship with God.

Dan Barker then writes,

“Religion does not have a monopoly on good deeds.”

This is a response to an argument that no one has made.

Next we are informed that:

“Most modern social and moral progress has been made by people free from religion--including Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Charles Darwin, Margaret Sanger, Albert Einstein, Andrew Carnegie, Thomas Edison, Marie Curie, H. L. Mencken, Sigmund Freud, Bertrand Russell, Luther Burbank and many others who have enriched humanity.”

This list of modern social and moral progressives who were free from religion is, with all dues respect, laughable. Not laughable in a childish manner but because compiling a list of social and moral progressives who were deeply religious would require my computer’s entire memory (not to mention that Dan Barker’s list is peppered with racists). This reminds me of Sam Harris’ quaint argument in this same regard. Sam Harris actually manages to name precisely one single non-religious charitable group, Doctors Without Borders, and thinks that this somehow is an equal balance to the hundreds of thousands of religiously based charities, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, disaster relief organizations, hospitals, universities, adoption agencies, foster homes, etc., etc., etc.
Incidentally, I have written an essay about Bertrand Russell’s and Sam Harris’ fallacious logic in terming them The Dynamic Duo of Demonstrably Deleterious Delusion.
Dan Barker then writes,

“Most religions have consistently resisted progress—including the abolition of slavery; women's right to vote and choose contraception and abortion; medical developments such as the use of anesthesia; scientific understanding of the heliocentric solar system and evolution, and the American principle of state/church separation.”

This appears to be elephant hurling and there is surely much to be written with regards to all of these subjects. I wish to offer reference material with regards to the charge that religion resisted the understanding of heliocentricity and make a succinct statement about evolution.
I cannot speak for whatever “religion” might mean but I can offer an opinion about the Judeo-Christian view of evolution in a general sense: we must define our terms since not even creationists or intelligent design proponents oppose “evolution.” What can be scientifically verified is not opposed and does not conflict with the biblical view. What is purely speculative, mere story telling, or purely philosophic is another matter altogether—although this too goes under some definitions of “evolution” and is opposed on both theological and scientific grounds.

As for the heliocentric issue please see The Copernican Myths and Galileo - A Story of a Hero of Science.
Continue reading Freethought Without Forethought?, part 6 of 8...

Freethought Without Forethought?, part 5 of 8

This is part five of an eight part essay responding to Dan Barker and the Freedom From Religion Foundation (hereinafter FFRF). I will be considering their “Nontract” #11 “What Is A Freethinker?”

This segment serves as the “Doesn't the complexity of life require a designer?”.

Part 1: Introduction
Part 2: “How do freethinkers know what is true?”
Part 3: “Do freethinkers have a basis for morality?”
Part 4: “Do freethinkers have meaning in life?”
Part 5: “Doesn't the complexity of life require a designer?”
Part 6: “Why are freethinkers opposed to religion?” and “Hasn't religion done tremendous good in the world?”
Part 7: “Do freethinkers have a particular political persuasion?” and “Is atheism/humanism a religion?”
Part 8: “Why should I be happy to be a freethinker?” and “How can I support freethought?”

“Doesn't the complexity of life require a designer?”
This section states:

“The complexity of life requires an explanation. Darwin's theory of evolution, with cumulative nonrandom natural selection ‘designing’ for billions of years, has provided the explanation. A ‘Divine Designer’ is no answer because the complexity of such a creature would be subject to the same scrutiny itself. Even a child knows to ask: ‘If God made everything, then who made God?’ Freethinkers recognize that there is much chaos, ugliness and pain in the universe for which any explanation of origins must also account.”

[italics in original]

To begin with, Dan Barker makes a category mistake by first referencing life as it already exists and then jumping to the issue of ultimate origins (of a designer for instance). In my essay Look Both Ways: Two Atheistic Logical Fallacies I point out that Darwin’s theory is not so much a viable explanation but a Victorian era tall tale. It may accurately explain how already existing organism’s can change as per micro-evolution with which neither creationists, intelligent design theorists, nor the Bible have any problems at all. But as for origins, that is another issue altogether.

Indeed even a child knows to ask who made God and a Freethinker is likely to make the following statements:

It is ignorant and superstitious to believe that God made everything out of nothing.

It is logical and scientific to believe that nothing made everything out of nothing.

It is ignorant and superstitious to believe that God is eternal.

It is logical and scientific to believe that matter is eternal.

God is an effect and must have had a cause.

Matter is the uncaused first cause.

If God made everything, then who made God?

Matter made everything and nothing made matter.

In my essays The Gap Filler and Look Both Ways I offer examples of atheists appealing to time, space, matter, chance and even faith in seeking to justify their beliefs. Some, even in the name of science, take their materialistic worldview to such dogmatic extremes that they make statements such as was made by Scott C. Todd, Department of Biology, Kansas State University:

“Even if all the data pointed to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.”[1]

As I have pointed out in two essays about cosmology, atheists tend to generally take one of two views: either they avoid the pre-Big Bang scenario (Part I) or they rely on the unobserved, un-experimented upon, un-falsifiable, concept of oscillations and multi-verses (Part II).

One cannot read more than three chapters into the Bible before finding an answer to why there is “much chaos, ugliness and pain,” this answer has been available to the world for millennia and is succinctly referred to as “the fall”—God’s answer is redemption. But how does Freethough account for it? The same way that they explain the universe, life and everything: it just is.
Not believing in God does not make chaos, ugliness or pain go away.
The Judeo-Christian worldview offers an explanation for and ultimate cessation of chaos, ugliness and pain—it claims that there may be an ultimate meaning for it all.
The atheist/Freethough worldview guarantees that all chaos, ugliness and pain are for absolutely nothing. Actually, it is not for nothing. When, for example, pedophiles rape and murder children that horrendous tragedy resulted in the pedophiles enjoying themselves. Moreover, if the pedophiles manage to evade the temporal judicious systems of this world they simply get away with it, keep enjoying themselves, and eventually die of old age and then enjoy the perfect peace of annihilation. One of the best reasons for rejecting non-theism of any sect is the fact of chaos, ugliness and pain (see my essay Four Succinct Statements on Suffering).

[1] Scott C. Todd, “A View from Kansas on that Evolution Debate,” Nature, Vol. 401, Sep. 30, 1999, p. 423

Continue reading Freethought Without Forethought?, part 5 of 8...

Freethought Without Forethought?, part 4 of 8

This is part four of an eight part essay responding to Dan Barker and the Freedom From Religion Foundation (hereinafter FFRF). I will be considering their “Nontract” #11 “What Is A Freethinker?”

This segment serves as the “Do freethinkers have meaning in life?”.

Part 1: Introduction
Part 2: “How do freethinkers know what is true?”
Part 3: “Do freethinkers have a basis for morality?”
Part 4: “Do freethinkers have meaning in life?”
Part 5: “Doesn't the complexity of life require a designer?”
Part 6: “Why are freethinkers opposed to religion?” and “Hasn't religion done tremendous good in the world?”
Part 7: “Do freethinkers have a particular political persuasion?” and “Is atheism/humanism a religion?”
Part 8: “Why should I be happy to be a freethinker?” and “How can I support freethought?”

“Do freethinkers have meaning in life?”
This section states:

“Freethinkers know that meaning must originate in a mind. Since the universe is mindless and the cosmos does not care, you must care, if you wish to have purpose. Individuals are free to choose, within the limits of humanistic morality. Some freethinkers find meaning in human compassion, social progress, the beauty of humanity (art, music, literature), personal happiness, pleasure, joy, love, and the advancement of knowledge.”

This is quite accurate since according to the Barkerian sect of Freethought life only has meaning because we give meaning to life. Yet, the issue is that they must give meaning to life because, according to their worldview, life has no absolute-intrinsic-objective meaning. Life is meaningless and so any meaning they concoct is necessarily self-induced consoling delusion, which is the very thing of which they accuse theists.

Please understand that for the Freethinker this fact is nothing short of a complement. That is to say, they would take pride in the fact that they do not need a supernatural entity to tell them what the meaning of life is; they are intelligent enough to find their own. However, there have been atheists who have made their purpose to slaughter millions upon millions of people in order to gain, and maintain, their political power. In such cases how could other atheists absolutely condemn such personal prescriptions of meaning? Perhaps the only way would be to borrow from theistic moral systems.

But what about Dan Barker’s qualifiers about not hurting and being kind? The fact is that the Barkerian ethical system is not merely what he describes in the tract that we have been discussing. In my essay Dan Barker and the Alien Rape Voyeurs I quote Dan Barker in his debate with Peter Payne in which he states (at 16:37 into part 2):

“My statement that ‘we ought to be good’ is only conditional on: if you wish to be a person, a healthy person, who lives in a world with a minimum, minimum of harm in it. If that’s the kind of person you are, you, if that’s the kind of person you ah, you are, you wanna be, then if you wish to be labeled ‘ethical’ by other people then you ought to act in ways that minimize harm. If you don’t then you don’t have to, there’s no universal imperative that says you have to. In fact, many people prove that you don’t have to and they don’t and we do try to protect ourselves from them. There’s no cosmic imperative that we all ‘aught’ to act in that way. But if you do wish want to continue valuing your existence as a sentient physical organism within this physical environment then, on that condition, then ah, and if you wish to be viewed by your society as ‘a good person,’ if that’s something you wish, then you will act in ways that minimize harm. And again, I didn’t say avoid harm I said it minimizes harm.”

In my aforementioned essay I dissect the various fallacies that are packed into this statement. For our purpose here I will simply point out that causing the least amount of harm to the least amount of people in order to minimize harm to the greater amount is precisely what the Nazis were doing during the Holocaust.

In his debate with Paul Manata, Dan Barker made the following indicative statement which reflects the one I quoted above from the tract as to what really matters:

“…what happens to me or a piece of broccoli, it won’t the Sun is going to explode, we’re all gonna be gone. No one’s gonna care.”

Ultimately, his point is was relative ethics—we are here now and we ought to care.
Continue reading Freethought Without Forethought?, part 4 of 8...

Freethought Without Forethought?, part 3 of 8

This is part three of an eight part essay responding to Dan Barker and the Freedom From Religion Foundation (hereinafter FFRF). I will be considering their “Nontract” #11 “What Is A Freethinker?”

This segment serves as the “Do freethinkers have a basis for morality?”.

Part 1: Introduction
Part 2: “How do freethinkers know what is true?”
Part 3: “Do freethinkers have a basis for morality?”
Part 4: “Do freethinkers have meaning in life?”
Part 5: “Doesn't the complexity of life require a designer?”
Part 6: “Why are freethinkers opposed to religion?” and “Hasn't religion done tremendous good in the world?”
Part 7: “Do freethinkers have a particular political persuasion?” and “Is atheism/humanism a religion?”
Part 8: “Why should I be happy to be a freethinker?” and “How can I support freethought?”

“Do freethinkers have a basis for morality?”
Of interest with regards to morality is Dan Barker’s reference to Jesus as “a moral monster” (during his debate with Paul Manata).

This section of the tract is one which Dan Barker is, by his own admission, completely unqualified to speak on. As I very clearly demonstrated in my essay Dan Barker and the Alien Rape Voyeurs, Dan Barker argues in favor of relative morals to the point of claiming that rape is not absolutely immoral (I also wrote on his views on lying in my essay To Lie, or Not To Lie). We have also seen that Dan Barker claims that it is a blessing to brutally and painfully murder beautiful, innocent and defenseless human babies. Dehumanize the baby as much as you want and conveniently narrow your arguments to claim that abortion merely removes a few microscopic cells from the womb—the fact is that tens of millions of beautiful, innocent and defenseless human babies are brutally and painfully murdered.

Let us now survey this section of the tract. Barbara Walker is quoted to the effect of,

“What is moral is simply what does not hurt others. Kindness…sums up everything.”

[ellipsis points in original]
This statement is actually very indicative of the simplistic and ultimately meaningless moral concoctions of Freethinkers and various neo-atheists. What does it mean to “hurt” others and what is “kindness”? These catchwords lead to a moral system that is far too generic.


For instance, imagine that Jane Doe goes out night after night getting completely drunk and having one night stands with various John Does. Jane and the Johns are consenting adults and thus they are not hurting anyone. But what happens when Jane finds out that she is pregnant? She may or may not even know who the father is. She may abort the baby, which is no blessing but hurting a baby to death. She may raise a child in a broken, single parent home, which is better than murder but is still harmful. She may know who the father is and force the child to live out of a suitcase being shuffled between two parents that hate each other. When could anyone have told Jane and John that they were being immoral? Not until it was too late at which time this moral system is simply useless.



The tract continues by stating,

“Freethinkers argue that religion promotes a dangerous and inadequate ‘morality’ based on blind obedience, unexamined ultimatums, and ‘pie-in-the-sky’ rewards of heaven or gruesome threats of hell.”

There is a concept known as transference or redirection which may manifest as a person detesting in other people that which they detest about themselves even if they are not consciously aware of it. Dan Barker argues that Freethinkers reject morality based on blind obedience and yet, as I have already mentioned, one of his commandments states that “Individuals are free to choose, within the limits of humanistic morality.” Either you adhere to Dan Barker’s rigid authoritarian dogma or you cannot be a Freethinker, which thus becomes an oxymoronic term.As for heaven/hell reward/punishment, I have responded to Dan Barker’s arguments in this regard in my essay Dan Barker and the Alien Rape Voyeurs.



Kyle Butt, M.A. has written a very telling article entitled, What “We All Know” about a Lie. In it he makes the following point regarding the relative morals for which Dan Barker argues:

“Putting Dan Barker’s statements together in logical form: (1) he considers it moral to lie in order to ‘protect someone from harm;’ (2) he considers religion to be harmful; (3) then it must follow that Dan Barker would lie in order to dissuade a person from believing in God or religion.”

Continue reading Freethought Without Forethought?, part 3 of 8...

Freethought Without Forethought?, part 2 of 8

This is part two of an eight part essay responding to Dan Barker and the Freedom From Religion Foundation (hereinafter FFRF). I will be considering their “Nontract” #11 “What Is A Freethinker?”

This segment serves as the “How do freethinkers know what is true?”.

Part 1: Introduction
Part 2: “How do freethinkers know what is true?”
Part 3: “Do freethinkers have a basis for morality?”
Part 4: “Do freethinkers have meaning in life?”
Part 5: “Doesn't the complexity of life require a designer?”
Part 6: “Why are freethinkers opposed to religion?” and “Hasn't religion done tremendous good in the world?”
Part 7: “Do freethinkers have a particular political persuasion?” and “Is atheism/humanism a religion?”
Part 8: “Why should I be happy to be a freethinker?” and “How can I support freethought?”

“How do freethinkers know what is true?”
This section begins by stating:

“Clarence Darrow once noted, ‘I don’t believe in God because I don’t believe in Mother Goose.”

Sadly, this is indicative of the level at which vast amounts of atheistic literature is written in the image of our sound-byte, pull-quote, gotcha, pop-culture. Apparently, if Mr. Darrow could be convinced that Mother Goose existed he would then also believe in God. Moreover, no one has ever claimed that Mother Goose is real or plays any role whatsoever in the universe. The existence or non-existence of Mother Goose is irrelevant and so this is a category mistake. William Lane Craig’s arguments against the Flying Spaghetti Monster is applicable to Mother Goose as well. I cannot believe that I just had to write such a sentence—Flying Spaghetti Monsters and Mother Goose, oi vey!—but that would merely be my argument from personal incredulity.


The tract continues:

“Freethinkers are naturalistic. Truth is the degree to which a statement corresponds with reality. Reality is limited to that which is directly perceivable through our natural senses or indirectly ascertained through the proper use of reason.”

Again, we hit dogmatic barriers: your reason is not allowed to ascertain anything that is not absolute naturalism. Apparently, anything else would not be “proper.”

The tract continues thusly:

“Reason is a tool of critical thought that limits the truth of a statement according to the strict tests of the scientific method. For a statement to be considered true it must be testable (what evidence or repeatable experiments confirm it?), falsifiable (what, in theory, would disconfirm it, and have all attempts to disprove it failed?), parsimonious (is it the simplest explanation, requiring the fewest assumptions?), and logical (is it free of contradictions, non sequiturs, or irrelevant ad hominem character attacks?).”

It would be rather refreshing if Dan Barker and the FFRF would put their own statements to this test.

For instance, Dan Barker wrote:

“the real drive behind the antiabortionists: misogyny. I don’t believe that any one of them cares a hoot for a fetus.”[1]

This statement is indeed testable and falsifiable: we could ask a pro-life proponent why they support that particular view, if they answer with anything but “misogyny” the statement has been falsified. We can do this on the spot with me as a volunteer: I am pro-life, or “antiabortionists” as Dan Barker terms it, and am concerned about beautiful, innocent and defenseless human beings, or “fetus” as people who want to conveniently narrow the argument and dehumanize babies term it. The test results are that the statement has been falsified.
The parsimonious criteria is a bit contrived particularly when consider that it is likely based on the concept of Ockham’s Razor – but be aware that the razor cuts both ways (see here and here).

Is it logical? Dan Barker claims to know why approximately 166,879,663 people (this just in America) are pro-life when he surely could not provide one single shred of evidence to prove his claim (see Dan Barker’s Views On Human Dignity for more on this issue). No wonder he states that his shockingly cynical, pessimistic and besmirching statement is something that he believes. All of this is not surprising however, considering that this is the very same Dan Barker who in his debate with John Rankin stated,

“Darwin has bequeathed what is good.”

As well as,

“I think abortion is a blessing.”

Above, we noted that he also mentioned “irrelevant ad hominem character attacks” (of course, this is redundant since ad hominems are character attacks). In his self-published book, Losing Faith In Faith, Dan Barker wrote a chapter entitled “Ministers I Have Known,” which is nothing but ad hominems. He refers to these ministers “perspiring,” “waving their hankies,” “shouting,” “prancing about,” “ruling their churches like little kingdoms.” One he besmirches for being “overweight,” yet another for being “skinny.” One is a Mexican who has 12 children “!” He also employed the ad hominid above in his beliefs about pro-lifers: he was besmirching their character and motivations rather than dealing with the issue.
Moreover, he also makes another comment that is about as childish as the one which he approvingly quoted about Mother Goose:

“I have a friend who says if you were to take all the preachers in the world and lay them end to end, it would be a good idea just to leave them there.”

Once it has been demonstrated by the scientific method that the scientific method is the test of the truth of a statement Dan Barker can claim that this is the criteria that we are to utilize. Until such time he cannot hold his rigidly controlled sect of Freethinkers to a standard to which he does not adhere.

[1] Dan Barker, Losing Faith In Faith—From Preacher to Atheist (Madison, WI: Freedom from Religion Foundation, 1992), p. 213

Continue reading Freethought Without Forethought?, part 2 of 8...