Seattle Atheists

Review by Jeff Kidd

The Year of Living Biblically by A. J. Jacobs is exactly what it claims to be. I mean this statement in a way that goes beyond the simple aptness of the title. Say what you will about the merits of the project, but this is an excellent proposal for a book, and it is aptly executed by Jacobs. The seemingly simple concept is stretched for over 300 pages. After the first chapter or so, the reader pretty much gets the idea–but the book does remain interesting and entertaining for its entirety.

This journal of Jacobs’s experiences and thoughts are relayed in a blog-like format. Each chapter, which corresponds to a month, consists of multiple sections (“posts”), corresponding to the events and reactions of the day. To ensure a complete experience, Jacobs will often set himself specific rules or behaviors to focus on for a set time. I was a big fan of the Blogging the Bible sereis by David Plotz, but there were several aspects of Old Testament law I was completely unaware (for example: I’d somehow managed to remain unaware of both shofar blowing and various bird egg rituals). Jacobs frequency admits his obsessions with his Amazon.com rankings, and the placement of his previous book at airport stores. There is very clearly defined target audience for this work. Jacobs consistently hits the target dead center, leading to the unsurprising popular success of the novel.

I feel a little odd about this. It is generally advisable to review the book you actually read, not the book you wish the author had written. And like I mentioned, Jacobs succeeded in writing an interesting and readable book. But it is clearly aimed at the airplane-reading/book-of-the-month level. But I am an inherently selfish reader, and this book often was not what I wanted it to be. Whenever there is the opportunity to expand in some detail on the historical basis or philosophical implications of some topic, Jacobs consistently demurs. Instead, a witty declaration is offered, and the narrative amiably advances onward. Two examples stand out, but there are many others.

First, the notion of the relationship between the first commandment and strict monotheism. Part of the goal of the project is for Jacobs to “get into the head” of the ancient Israelites. Here is the entire discussion of how many gods there really are (pg 183 of the paperback, Day 154):

Even more exasperating: If I do get to the bedrock, it may be such a strange bedrock that I won’t be able to process it. In Karen Armstrong’s terrific book A History of God, she says that the ancient Israelites weren’t really monotheists. They believed in the existence of many Gods. Hence, the command “You shall have no other Gods before me.” It doesn’t say “You shall have no other Gods at all.”

Could I ever hope to get into the skull of an ancient Israelite who beleved in several gods? Do I want to?

End chapter. End thought. That’s as deep as we go on this point.

A second example: just who are the Samaritans and what is their religion? Pg 219 (Day 204):

On the cab ride back to the hotel, my mind keeps coming back to the Samaritan Bible. So similar, but so different, too. What if history had taken a left turn? What if the Samaritan Torah had become the standard, and millions of Semitic faithful flooded to Mount Gerizim every year to sacrifice lams, except for a few hundred people called hte Jews, who worshiped at an obscure site known as the Western Wall?

On these points Jacobs does offer some more details in a the appendix. But I would have preferred some more elaboration on the importance of historical contingency in what we now think of as the sacred. That seems like a relevant discussion if one wants to really get a grasp on religion and society.

I would have enjoyed a more fleshed out discussion of points such as these. But, then, those are the types of issues I’d find myself grappling with in such a project. Perhaps Jacobs simply had different concerns. Or, maybe he simply (and probably correctly), had a keener sense for what the audience really wanted.

Jeff Blog, Essays Book Reviews

We’re in the middle of an economic crisis. People are suffering, losing their homes and their jobs. Meanwhile, Christian Faith Center, a tax-exempt mega-church with no apparent philanthropic goals or activities, has recently sought and received approval for a helipad at its Federal Way campus.

It’s bad taste for people to flaunt wealth in an economic downturn, whether they be CEOs of major US automakers, executives at AIG, or a church. It’s in even poorer taste to use perceived wealth, and the promise of wealth, to attract followers to a religion. Tax-exemption is best reserved to support non-profit organizations dedicated to the public good. Though there are organizations with religious affiliation that engage in charitable work, the propagation of a religious belief is not charitable in and of itself.

Since the definition of a tax exempt religious organization is very broad and there is little oversight of their activities, many churches continue to maintain tax-exempt status and huge incomes. While it is not the place of government to endorse or oppose religion, this obligation of neutrality does not logically extend to giving religious organizations a special exemption from taxes. Whether a community organization is educational, charitable, or social, its income should be reported and subjected to oversight if it wants to remain tax-free and accept tax-exempt donations—or it should pay taxes like any other private corporation. The Christian Faith Center is spending its money on a helipad, a luxury; other religious organizations have funneled ridiculous sums of money to provide personal luxury (and legal defense) to charismatic preachers or even to provide aid to terrorist organizations, all while remaining tax-free and largely un-scrutinized. Laws prohibit any private individual from benefiting from tax-exempt earnings, but these laws are unenforceable on religious organizations due to other laws limiting civil tax inquiries of churches.

While we don’t wish to interfere with the Christian Faith Center’s community building efforts, we think that their plan for a helicopter pad demonstrates poor taste given the current economic climate, is a misuse of their tax-exempt status, and wastes the hard-earned money of their donors. We would like to encourage the Christian Faith Center to scrap their plan of unneeded air transportation and instead donate the money to a local charitable organization that does not discriminate on the basis of religion, such as Seattle Atheists did when they raised nearly $1000 for Seattle Children’s Hospital by wrapping presents this holiday season.

— Lex Maxwell

admin Blog, Essays Essay, Media, News

One of the cool things about atheism is that an atheist is free to be entirely skeptical about their atheism. Unlike faith-based beliefs where certain postulates must be assumed to be true (most commonly the existence of god and extra-physical consciousness) and evidence to the contrary largely ignored before any further consideration is possible, an atheist can be entirely open to the possibility of the existence of a god-like creator entity just as they can be entirely open to the revision of scientific theories. Our universe is complex and may indeed be several dimensions larger than we realize which could leave ample room for god to exist (the universe is, by definition, everything that exists; if god exists he must exist in the universe. Any arguments to the contrary are red herring arguments of semantics). However, there is exactly zero hard evidence supporting the existence of any given god. There is even less evidence of a much broader concept of ~”some kind of sentient higher power” which would require an even more fundamental kind of proof than that required to prove better defined claims of godhood. But does the openness to the possibility of the existence of unknown phenomenon justify considering specific phenomenon when making decisions even when there is no evidence these things exist at all?

Consider the following analogy:
Given world-wide shipping and the tenacity of Arthropods it is entirely possible that no matter where you live and given any typical means of storage there may be highly venomous spiders in your shoes when you go to put them on the in the morning (If this idea doesn’t cause you concern go watch the movie Arachnophobia). For most people the probability is low but the possibility is entirely supported by evidence and you don’t know for sure until you check. Most people do not check their shoes for spiders every morning. If a typical person were to inspect their shoes for spiders every morning we would call them insane for being concerned about something so unlikely to happen. There is infinitely more evidence to suggest there may be spiders in your shoes than that there might be a god. We should worry about the existence of god infinitely less than the existence of venomous spiders in situations known to generally be safe.

Consideration of the existence of a god is not warranted by lack of evidence. Lack of evidence either way being considered evidence in itself is classic self reinforcing delusion, not logic. There is no hard evidence to suggest that it’s even possible for an entity meeting any of the popular meaningful definitions of “God” to exist. Proving that the universe has more than four dimensions, an idea that real science is pursuing, might prove that it’s possible for a god to exist. Even if this possibility were proven, giving us a way to at least look for a god, we would then still have to prove that a god does indeed exist in one of those dimensions (proving that it’s possible that there is a spider in your shoes does not prove that a spider is in your shoes). Should evidence supporting a high possibility of the existence of a god come to light we might need to start checking our shoes for god-spiders waiting to bite our unrepentant feet, but until then it is entirely unnecessary. You can still check if you want. You won’t be a bad atheist; just a little bit paranoid.

Jeff Blog, Essays Essay

The laws of the state should never be written based solely on religious belief. It is not the place of the majority, no matter how large it may be, to unfairly infringe on the basic freedoms of any minority.  There is no factual evidence or logical argument to support a ban on homosexual marriage as being a necessary safeguard of the people, and any such ban is cruel and unjust. Religious Freedom and Gender Equality are guaranteed to all US citizens and Seattle Atheists promotes these ideals of freedom as appropriate for all of humanity. All persons must be treated equally under the law and granted the freedom to succeed or fail in marriage according to the same terms as anyone else.

Seattle Atheists Board Essays Essay, Press releases, State/Church Separation