Trina Hoaks of the Atheism Examiner is a former Christian with “a unique perspective on atheism.” What makes her unique is that “[s]he is a ravenous reseacher who constantly seeks truth through exploration of evidence.” Today, she turns her finely-honed investigative skills to the question of why, as reported by the Los Angeles Times, atheists are underrepresented in the 111th Congress. Her shocking conclusion:

It isn’t surprising that there aren’t more atheists in political positions. After all, many states have in place religious restrictions on holding political office. That is to say that no atheist is allowed to hold office in certain states. It makes sense that atheists would not seek careers in politics.

Until states recognize that it is wrong to require that someone profess a belief in God as a prerequisite to holding office, atheists will likely continue to be underrepresented in the political arena.

Atheists, in other words, are underrepresented because it is illegal for them to be representatives, and they are thus sensibly discouraged by the prospect of prison. As proof of her thesis that the laws are wrong, Ms. Hoaks then points out that “[a]ccording to the US Constitution ‘no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.’” So the anti-atheism laws are not only wrong, but unconstitutionally wrong.

As noted earlier, I was once raven-ously atheistic (take it to the other thread, please). However, my researching skills were ordinary rather than unique, so when faced with the same question years ago I followed my dull-witted hunch that if the Constitution clearly forbade something, the states couldn’t do it even if they failed to recognize it as wrong. Lo and behold, I quickly discovered that the Supreme Court liberated atheists to legislate and otherwise impose their morality upon others nearly fifty years ago, and I was forced to find something else to complain about. In other words, Hoaks is perpetrating a hoax.

I think the real reason atheists are underrepresented in politics is that they failed to take my advice to form the the National Atheist Media/Business Lobbying Association. With respect to journalism, however, they appear to be represented uniquely well.

Many of you have asked why I returned to the nest.

Once upon a time, I was known as The Raven Atheist. I would occasionally alight to wet my beak at Dawn Eden’s blog, The Dawn Patrol. On February 16, 2006, she posted a entry entitled The Bird’s the Word, about an avian-themed headline she had inspired at The New York Daily News. The poignancy of it all drove me to leave the following appeal in the comments section:

Perhaps if you pray thusly I will convert:

Our Feather, who Lark in Heaven, Swallow be thy name.
Thy Kingfisher come, thy Bill be done, Heron Earth as Ibis in Raven.
Gizzard this Jay, Owl daily bread, and Corvid us our Thrush Thrashers, as we forgive Crows Hoot trespass against us.
And lead us not into Wren-Quail-Tern, but deliver us from Emus.
For thine is the Wingdom, the Plover, and the Lorry, for ever and ever.

A Hen.

For this, I have no Egrets.

UPDATE:

Christine the Soccer Mom asks: Wren are you going to stop the punnery?

A: Tonightingale.

Carla asks: Leave me aloon.

A: Remember how Six feared Seven because Seven Eight Nine? Well, Toucan not leave One aloon.

Doogie says he has been chicken out my blog and demands that I “dodon’t stop.”

A: I promise you that this is only the penguining.

Lily cautions that I’ll end up in the nuthatch from waxwing my punnery skills.

A: With all the cuckoos from the comments section?

Lily now says she meant “waxwing poetical.”

A: It was a mynah error.

Carla says: Some chick once sang You Can Crow Your Own Way.

A: That was Phoebe Nicks of Tweetwood Mac.

Some conversions from one belief system to another provoke more interest and emotion than others. Religious conversions seem to produce the most, to the extent that the term “conversion” is primarily associated with them. And conversions from atheism to belief in God (as opposed to conversions between
particular religions) may generate the most heat of all.

Conversions from one worldview to another do, of course, occur outside of the religious context. For the purpose of this discussion, I’ll examine the reaction to a hypothetical conversion from a belief in empiricism to a belief in rationalism. By way of background, the distinction between the two is roughly the difference between believing that knowledge arises from matter or from mind.

A strict empiricist adheres to the former view, that all knowledge is derived from observation of the world by the senses. Thus, the theory goes, We cannot determine whether water quenches fire, whether a ball will bounce, whether there is a cat under the bed or whether our feet are still attached to our legs without looking or experimenting. Even math, to the strictest empiricist, is some sense dependent on observation of the world, as we count particular things. If there were no things in the world there would be nothing to count. To know whether two marbles plus two marbles equals four marble we must simply put them on the table and count.

This (mostly) common sense view forms the heart of science. We look at facts and data to discover the truth about everything. Neither speculation nor even logic can tell us anything about what is out there, about what actually exists, about how things interact. One disturbing consequence of this view, as David Hume observed, is that we cannot make assumptions about how things we have observed will act (or exist) later, or when they are out of our view. Past performance does not guarantee future results. The “law” of cause and effect — or any supposed scientific law — is simply an inference we make upon seeing various events “conjoined” in some way after repeated observations. But logic cannot tell us whether matters will continue as they have; as Hume says, the “ultimate springs and principles are totally shut up from human curiosity and enquiry.” Only seeing is believing. Any firm conviction in a law is mere leap of faith.

A rationalist, however, sees reason as the starting and ending point of all knowledge. It is crazy to view the universe as merely a huge bucket of messy, random, and possibly ever-changing facts. Rather, all experience is a question of consciousness and thinking and reasoning — the facts may present themselves to our minds, but it is our minds which categorize, interpret and organize the information according to principles which are not provided by the data itself. The rationalist also “knows” that the laws governing the physical world are real and that all the events happen for some “reason.” It would be absurd to view a law as just a large collection of coincidentally connected events or anecdotes, just as absurd as doubting the existence of the rest of the world which lies outside of your immediate, empirically-confirmable view.

My discussion of empiricism and rationalism is necessarily incomplete, and the terms are broad enough so that that at least some formulations of the two worldviews may be compatible. But there is a history of spirited debate between the adherents of each view, with the “extremists” on either side believing that theirs excludes the other. In a particular case, the change in perspective could be as radical as a conversion from atheism to a deep religious faith. So with respect to conversion, my question focuses on why a “pure” empiricist who announced a new-found dedication to rationalism (or vice versa) would not be greeted with the same outpouring of love, hate, joy, sadness, praise, insults, prayers and cursing that often confronts side-
switchers in the religious context.

I have a couple of theories. First, a person who declared a conversion from empiricism to rationalism might discover that no one knew or cared about what what he or she was talking about. Even if dramatically illustrated with a picture of Spinoza, dressed in all his finery and otherwise historically accurate, the line between the underlying philosophies is not one which demarcates a battleground in modern society.

This not to say that some people do not have have strong opinions on the empiricism/rationalism debate, or that those unfamiliar with the positions, would not form a strong convictions as to one side or the other once the theories were explained to them. People still do debate whether the the world vanishes when they fall sleep, whether falling forest trees make sounds, whether gravity might reverse itself, or whether it is grounded by some immutable law. But discussions of such matters rarely engender great strife, even among those who would consider the opposing opinion to be nearly delusional. The converted empiricist is generally not confronted with accusations of stupidity, insanity, betrayal, intellectual dishonesty or fakery from his or her friends, family or blog-commentators.

Ultimately, the difference probably turns more upon morality and politics than anything else. Debates about religion are rarely solely philosophical ones about the nature of God. While the issue may not be expressly raised, the convert (or deconvert) is frequently viewed as having moved more forcefully in the rightward or leftward direction favored or disfavored by those greeted with the news. The empiricist/rationalist debate rarely carries the same baggage.

HT: UnspeakableyViolentJane

Hat Tips: Helen of Random Musings, UnspeakableyViolentJane

>
January 1, 2009, New York, New York
Special to The Raving Theist

Encouraged by kind e-mails from well-wishing believers, the Raving Theist has announced and completed his campaign to be the spiritual director of all Christendom just two weeks after converting from atheism.

TRT acknowledged that he was an “unconventional choice” but promised to work twice as hard to compensate for his previous lack of piety. Citing recent senatorial appointments and the apppointment of Obama by the media, TRT said that he had concluded that appointment, specifically self-appointment, was the most appropriate route to the office.

TRT dismissed critics who questioned his readiness to lead his suddenly-fellow Christians. In addition to citing his experience running a blog, he noted that as The Raving Atheist he had gained “unparalleled humility” from being so utterly wrong about the nature of the universe and his place in it. However, quoting Proverbs 27:2, he said that he would leave it to others to judge whether he was the most humble man on Earth.

TRT refused to answer questions from reporters but vowed to get back to them with answers on “that whole prayer thing.” TRT also said he would graciously welcome advice from readers on how to run their lives, and noted that he had already established a “team of rivals” in his comboxes comprised of warring factions of obscenity-spewing atheists and mortified believers.

TRT ran himself on a slogan of “Hope and Unchange,” alluding respectively to the prospect of eternal life and the nature of God.

I had planned to shutter this blog shortly after the end of this year. The day after the election, with so many of my friends depressed by the outcome, I announced that I would be publicly declaring my conversion to Christianity. Like me, many of them could barely drag themselves out of bed, read the newspaper or turn on the television. I hoped that it would cheer them to see The Raving Atheist go out on a faith-filled note, and encourage them to rise to the challenges posed by the incoming administration. I anticipating closing the blog with a few wrap-up posts, and then returning full-steam to the pro-life efforts that eventually brought me to this good place in my life.

The blog was essentially moribund due to an abandonment of fourteen months. I expected perhaps a dozen goodbye (or good riddance) comments on the conversion post. I did not bother to remove the Basic Assumptions or other trappings of godlessness because it seemed to me that would be like rearranging the furniture on the Titanic. The accompanying picture was selected by downloading the first suitably-sized result arising from a Google Image search for “Christ + Children.” I did not screen it for historical or political correctness because I assumed that the thought behind it would count enough for the handful of readers who would see it.

The deluge of comments and e-mails has persuaded me that some purpose might be served by an extended run of The Raving Theist. I have also been convinced, particularly by Jennifer of Conversion Diary, that sharing the story of my coming to faith might serve some beneficial purpose. It will be a maudlin, rickety, hole-filled, unconvincing narrative, in that respect not much different from the lives we lead in or out of the faith. For now, however, I will address (as time permits) some of the issues that have arisen more persistently in the comments, supplying additional observations where necessary.

(1) Yes, my conversion is real and sincere and heartfelt. It is not a mean atheist hoax or prank. At first I was offended that anyone could suspect me of such monstrous cruelty, but I realize that most people don’t know me well enough to understand how my character would so absolutely preclude such a charade. And having written my share of skeptical posts about the conversion of other atheists, I understand how impossible it would be for anyone who has perused my archives to conclude that I am anything more than fraud.

(2) Notably, there appears to be absolute certainty on both sides of hoax hypothesis. On the religious side the divide is not so significant: the believers who are convinced of my sincerity see my faith as a natural surrender to the truth, while those who think I am faking see it as consistent with the moral character or nastiness of many atheists, or at least those of my (former) ilk. Among the atheists, the divide is a little harder to explain. Those who believe it is a prank simply “know” that no one who has ever achieved their understanding of atheist concepts could ever possibly embrace the opposite conclusion. To them, the fakery is as obvious as that of a person who once believed that 1 + 1 = 2 suddenly renouncing that view in favor of the 1 + 1 = 3 conclusion. So one would think that every hardcore atheist would disbelieve my conversion. Nevertheless, two of the most militant internet atheists, PZ Myers of Pharyngula and Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon are fully convinced of my sincerity and predicted my conversion long ago. What the opposing atheists sides conclude as to each others’ sincerity regarding my sincerity I do not know.

(3) The atheists have justifiably pointed out that I have not supported my new thesis with anything more than a picture and an oath. As noted above, I will in time supply my reasons. I did not do so at first because the announcement was intended as consolation rather than argumentation. Furthermore, the calls for a full and immediate explanation of my beliefs and their justifications are unreasonable. I spent years on the exposition of my atheist views, and as I have noted, atheists disbelieve for a wide variety of reasons, and not all subscribe to the same rationales. I will pontificate at my leisure, in between silly headlines.

(4) Most of your demands for explanations are not so sincere, anyway. I will give you your fun nonetheless.

(5) Some of you are “sad” that I have abandoned my “principles.” What this means I am not sure. I know that when religious people tell you they are “sad,” you say that it is unreasonable to expect you to change yours beliefs to make them happy. So your atheist tears will not move me. Also, I do not know what principles you are referring to. If you are talking about my moral positions, you will have to be more specific about what I have abandoned.

(6) Various believers have expressed concern over the nastiness and obscenities directed at me. I don’t care. I did the same for years (albeit usually with a point somewhere) and am in no position to complain. And if I wanted to, I could out-nasty and out-swear any of them. I have lost my atheism, not my vocabulary. But I don’t want to. I do not even use the D-word anymore unless I am quoting somebody.

(7) I am not deleting the archives or atheist links. There is good mixed in with the bad, and lessons to be learned even from the bad. I will rearrange things so as to feature the links to religious blogs first. I have already added a bunch from those who commented and e-mailed me (click on “links” on the front page and scroll down to the bottom to “Theist Blogs”) If I have missed your blog please e-mail me (either ravingatheist-at-gmail.com or ravingtheist-at-gmail.com is fine).

(8) I believe in God, in the divinity of Jesus Christ our Savior, and that He was born and died for our sins so that we may have eternal life. God bless you all and Happy New Year!

Many of the children who will be gathering around Christmas trees tomorrow morning would not be here but for the kindness of my dear friend Ashli Foshee McCall. During my blogging hiatus, Dawn Eden and I became involved in the promotion and distribution of her book Beyond Morning Sickness: Battling Hyperemesis Gravidarum, a comprehensive, 500-page medically-reviewed guide to treatment option for a debilitating pregnancy disease which effectively makes the mother allergic to the fetus. Apart from sending free copies of the book to approximately 1,000 Ob/Gyns and any woman who wrote to her, Ashli has worked with the suffering women, their families and their doctors over the phone, in e-mails and in person to ensure that the pregnancy is brought to term. The glowing reviews of her book at Amazon by HG sufferers are but a small testament to the selfless dedication of this devout Christian homeschooling mother.

Ashli’s heart-wrenching work is often made more difficult by the pressure exerted by insurance companies, medical care providers, family members and friends to abort. Also terrible is the ordeal experienced by the bedridden mothers who become unable to attend to the needs of their other children. But worst of all can be the suffering of those children themselves, who are often bewildered by the seeming abandonment and frightened by their mothers’ plight.

So it is with immense pride that I announce that early next year, Ashli will publish a children’s book for the youngest and often overlooked victims of HG. Mama Has Hyperemesis Gravidarum (But Only For a While) will be a professionally-illustrated, full-color work designed to help gently prepare children for some of the negative realities of living with a pregnant mom who is suffering from HG. They will be comforted and encouraged by the recurring message that HG will end, and warmly reminded of pregnancy’s sweet reward.

We would like to place this book in the hands of every family that could benefit from it. As you celebrate the birth of our Savior tomorrow, I hope you will consider helping others celebrate the birth and lives of the precious little children He asked us to suffer to come unto Him.
If you write to Ashli at ashli@beyondmorningsickness.com, she will arrange, when the the books are available, to send a copy to one of the doctors on this list, or directly to the family of an HG sufferer. The total cost for this meaningful gift will be under $20, and one that will keep giving for many, many Christmases to come.