This was to be each of our sides giving our summary statements but Mr. Worden was given an advance copy of our response so he had the advantage of being able to respond to our points and introduce new information. I went through his article piece by piece at our August meeting but will now do so again with more detail and references for the benefit of those who couldn't make the meeting. I think responding to these common misunderstandings Mr. Worden continually passes along actually provides a useful opportunity to teach even if Mr. Worden insists on not learning the basis for his mistakes.
Let's begin:
Part One of Three.
DARSteve Worden:
First off, I apologize for offending the Fayetteville Freethinkers. I would like readers to know how I read the sign on I-540. If one were to put up a large billboard asking “Good without Dogs? Millions Are,” one might reasonably conclude that its sponsor was voicing an “a-canine-ist” sentiment (being “without dogs”). When I saw the sign “Good without God? Millions are,” I read it as voicing an atheist sentiment, given that the word “atheism” comes from the ancient Greek, “a” (without) “theos” (gods). That’s how I read the sign.
I think there is one tiny part that Mr. Worden is sincerely sorry about in these exchanges (the atheist children celebrating genocide with crayon drawings), but this isn't it. I see his point here. The sign certainly refers to those who are "without God." When I said he "misread our sign" I was referring to the intent of the sign and who it was directed to. It was an advertisement for those who are in some sense without God, often called freethinkers, humanists, etc.,. This is not Mr. Worden. Clearly Mr. Worden took it as an against God message. A common mistake. I don't have dogs, and am "good without dogs" but that doesn't mean I am against dogs or against other people having them (unless they bite me). Likewise, I don't have a God, and am "good without God" but that doesn't mean I am against God or against other people having gods (unless they have a deleterious effect on my society). And there's the rub. Religion very often, (not always) does have a very bad effect on society. See 9/11, see Art Hobson's article here. But we'll get to that in a moment.
DARWORDEN:
More importantly, based upon social scientific data I found the sign’s message somewhat misleading in two ways:
Now this is an important concern. Our seven word sign is misleading, in not just one but two ways? We will want to look at this in some detail. We really do not want to have a sign that is misleading. Is Worden right?
DARWORDEN
(1) compared to believers, people without God are generally not really all that “good” in the sense that they tend to be less happy[1], less healthy[2], live shorter lives[3], earn less money[4], are more apt to be involved in deviance[5], and more apt to be unmarried young white men[6], and ending up having children that are less well-educated[7] and more involved in delinquency and crime[8], and... [numbers inserted]
This is the same song Worden has sung from the beginning. And it's one I have heard all my life from the evangelicals around me. Rather than consider whether the claims of a particular religion are actually true, we are asked to believe that participation in the religion has certain side benefits. All along I've said this is entirely irrelevant to the most important question regarding any religion and that is, are the claims of the religion true? If not then how is this not living a life of hypocrisy? Worden is talking about supposed societal benefits of religious behavior while us philosopher/freethinker types are interested in the actual truth of the matter. I don't disbelieve the claims of the Jehovah's Witnesses because it will effect my income or make me more or less healthy, I disbelieve them because they are objectively, astonishingly, false.
Before we go through each of his eight unreferenced assertions let's acknowledge Worden's obvious intent here. Why is he saying this? Is he trying to provide a reason to be religious? Of course he is. He is a religion booster. That's his job at the newspaper. This is why he took such offense with our sign that made two very mundane, and entirely true, claims:
1) millions of people are good, and
2) they are good without God.
At the meeting a questioner pointed out that my dismissing Worden's list of supposed "not good" attributes of the irreligious, as irrelevant, is not a response to his argument. Okay, once we realize and acknowledge that Worden's supposed side benefits have nothing whatsoever to do with the most important question, the actual veracity of religious claims, I am more than happy to move on to the accuracy of his assertions about societal side benefits of religion (and I did). Realize what this means. Every single one of Worden's eight, cherry-picked, unreferenced swipes at unbelievers could be exactly 100% true and this would have exactly zero to say about the truth of the claims made by the religion in question. Mormon's may have the very best stats in each one of those categories but it would not follow from this that Mormonism is true.
Worden's main mistake. Worden is equivocating with the word good here. Readers of the sign will bring their own sense or definition of "good" but it's pretty clear that it is understood in the sense of morally good. That gets rid of almost all of Worden's list right there. If someone is "less happy" or "less educated" or makes "less money" or "lives a shorter life" we do not look at a person with such attributes as "not good." That would be absurd. But this is exactly what Worden asks us to do here. The only two, of his eight that could apply in some sense of morally "good" would be his #5 and #8. That is, more involved in "deviance," and for the children of unbelievers, more likely to be involved in "delinquency and crime." He provides no reference or definition of deviance and since many religious people consider alternative lifestyles "deviant" I am apt to take that one with a grain of salt. That leaves "delinquency and crime," but only for the children of unbelievers. Even if true, that doesn't leave much of Worden's list does it? And why only the children? Apparently the actually unbelievers themselves are less involved in crime or we can be confident that it would have be included in Worden's list.
Better yet, let's use the following example to show just how absurd Worden's list is as a measurement of people being "good." Let's consider this question:
How many of Worden's cherry picked attributes apply to Arkansans?
Let's see:
DARless happy[1],
Arkansas scores fifth from the bottom in happiness That may not be "good" compared with a higher score but does it make the fine citizens of Arkansas "not good?" Of course not. Can we see the equivocation now?
(pssst. the more secular states are more happy)
DARless healthy[2],
Arkansas comes in 37th in health. This means Arkansans are more likely to be "less healthy." That fact may not be "good" but does it make Arkansans "not good?" Of course not. See the equivocation now? (pssst. the more secular states are more healthy)
DARlive shorter lives[3],
Oops, Arkansas comes in fourth worst in mortality per 1,000. That's not good but it doesn't make Arkansans "not good." Is Worden thinking of packing his bags? (pssst. the more secular states have lower death rates)
DARearn less money[4],
Don't look now, Arkansas comes in sixth from last. That can't be "good" can it? Is Worden ready to condemn Arkansans as "not good" because we earn less? Or is it becoming more obvious that he is equivocating on the word "good?"
(pssst. people in the more secular states earn more money)
DARare more apt to be involved in deviance[5],
Left handed people are certainly deviant from the norm. Without a definition it's not clear what he means here. But if he will try to define it I will be glad to find out how Arkansas ranks. Don't get your hopes up. Having some familiarity with how sexual deviance follows the most zealously religious (for instance religious states consume the most porn), I have very little doubt that the most conservative and religious states will fail this litmus test too.
And notice how this game causes the guilt by association fallacy to kick in here. Let's say unbelievers, or Arkansas residents were more "apt to be involved in deviance." Does this make you, as an individual more likely to partake because you either became an unbeliever or moved to Arkansas? No. If you don't like deviance, don't partake in it. Arkansas has the eighth highest smoking rate in the nation, did I put myself at the risk of contracting the habit of smoking because I moved here as an adult? Of course not.
DARand more apt to be unmarried young white men[6],
Why this would be included in a list of things that is supposed to be evidence of "not good" is not at all clear. I don't know anyone that considers the categories of unmarried, young, white or male as being not good! What a ridiculous claim. Why is this included in a list of "not good" attributes?
DARand ending up having children that are less well-educated[7]
Like many of these, I doubt that this one is true but let's pretend it is. In this study of 21 education based variables attempting to find the "Smartest State" Arkansas came in 50th. Oops, that can't be good. Now I live in Arkansas so I am probably too stupid to know how many states there really are but I am pretty sure coming in 50th is somewhere near the bottom and probably not "good." If you don't like that analysis, here is another one. Arkansas ties for second to last. (pssst. the more secular states have higher education levels).
There's just one more:
DARand more involved in delinquency and crime[8],
In the categories of property crime and violent crime Arkansas comes in 11th worst in both.
I hope Worden's equivocation is crystal clear for everyone to see. If Worden thinks our sign was "misleading" because it claimed that people can be good without God then to be consistent he must take similar offense if a sign were to say:
"Are you a good Arkansan? Millions are."
How could Worden agree with this sign? Wouldn't it be "misleading?" However, Worden would probably agree with this sign, very few people wouldn't. Yet each of his carefully chosen unreferenced attributes he tries to throw at unbelievers apply to a far greater degree to the very state he lives in. And many more uncharitable attributes could be listed if one were to go to the trouble of cherry picking them. Of course another list of attributes could be selected making the state look quite nice.
Incidentally, Worden should be careful using this silly line of argument because it turns around and bites him. Arkansas ranks as the third most religious state in the nation. If you want to see states performing well in the above mentioned categories one will consistently find the more secular, less religious states beating the pants off of the religious states. The least religious? Vermont. The most religious state? Mississippi. As already referenced many times (but Mr. Worden has not shown any sign of learning from or responding to the actual substance of our rebuttals) societal dysfunction is STRONGLY correlated with religiosity. Likewise, societies performing at a high level of function correlate very strongly with populations that are more secular. This is true at the national level and the state level.
Part two and three follow below.
D.
-------------------
"Among nations as a whole, and on a personal basis, levels of religiosity and creationism tend to decline as income levels rise" (Pew 2002; Norris and Inglehart 2004; Gallup 2005b 2006a,) --LINK
"The analyses of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Study 1) and the General Social Surveys (Study 2) show that adolescent and adult intelligence significantly increases adult liberalism, atheism, and men’s (but not women’s) value on sexual exclusivity." --ibid
"The question of religious belief among US scientists has been debated since early in the century. Our latest survey finds that, among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever—almost total." --ibid