Last week the City of Winnipeg (Manitoba) voted to fund in the amount of $2.5 million a Youth for Christ Community Centre.  This public funding opens the door to a possible stimulus funding of $3 million from the federal government.

Christian youth centre gets public funding:  Proposed youth centre likened to residential school

In response, Centre for Inquiry Canada spokesperson Michael Payton issued the following open letter to the Director of Youth for Christ John Courtney.  We encourage our supporters to send versions of this letter to the politicians involved in passing this funding and any media that picked up the story.

Dear John,

I am writing in response to your story which appeared in the CBC News column entitled “Youth Centre Director eager to meet critics”. You can think of me as one of your critics.

John, I am an atheist and a secularist. This means that I neither believe in God, nor do I believe that religion fills a significant or important role for society. So when I heard that your group would be given almost 7 million dollars to build a youth centre in downtown Winnipeg, I felt completely betrayed.

I urge you to be fair and try not to chalk up my feelings to my humdrum atheist grumpiness. And yes I am a little grumpy. When my groups attempt to put up bus ads that say “there is probably no god,” city councilors call our signs offensive and morally damaging. In the end we have to go to court to get our signs put where they belong. Your group, on the other hand, seems to be getting millions of dollars from this very same government to actively convert people to evangelical Christianity.

But that really isn’t the point of all this. I think, and I'm sure you would agree, enough venom has been spewed on either side of this issue. What I am now most concerned with is the ability of Youth for Christ as an organization to properly aid this community. Apart from any philosophical differences between you and I, we can both agree that the main concern here should be to give these people the best help possible.

On that issue I have doubts about your organization’s ability to handle the kinds of problems we see in Winnipeg. I do not believe that your record has been very forthcoming on this front and I believe you have deliberately misrepresented your organization in order to further a religious cause.

For instance, in an interview with the Winnipeg Free Press you stated that your workers “occasionally” talk about Jesus. This implies that your first priority is social work and if it so happens that this issue of religion should come up then you might take some time talk about it.

But this is not the impression I get from researching your group, Mr. Courtney. For instance, a few quick internet searches revealed that your organization does in fact reach back to the 1940’s, when it was founded by Billy Graham. I also found out that you have been training your “workers” primarily as missionaries. A schedule of events for your Annual General Assembly of workers, where you take your workers for a weeklong training session every year, devotes almost half it’s time to events marked “prayer time” and “bible time.” (http://www.yfci.org/ga/schedule.html).

Even the basic description of your 2-year training program for these workers consists in the following: completing Biblical studies course, training in prayer, going to the General Assembly mentioned above (where they apparently learn about the bible and prayer) and ministry skills training.

Damningly absent from this treasure-trove of useful skills is any sign, at all, that your workers would have the slightest clue how to help an at-risk teen (other than to tell them about the bible or help them pray).

The closest I was able to come to a rigorous educational program for youth was the Violence Intervention Project. From what little information I could find the program appeared to be exactly what we need in Winnipeg. Parenting courses, community based therapy, school support and Children’s Social Skills Program. None of your project aims focused on Jesus or the Bible and instead spoke about enabling children to stay safe from crime, empowering parents and changing a culture of violence. Again, these are exactly what we need.

However, I couldn’t help but notice three things about this project. Firstly, it was not your project, it was a collaboration between Youth for Christ and a half dozen other organizations. Secondly, the preamble to your online document for this project notes that at the time of writing (2007) there had been “relatively few” projects of this kind pioneered by YFC; your team had to go to great lengths to study other projects in order to know how to best serve this community. Thirdly, the Violence Intervention Project was performed in a very small community, in England, three years ago. I was unable to find any information weighing the respective successes and shortcomings of this program or any indication that the program has been replicated in other parts of the world. All of this leads me to believe that for all of the successes of the VIP project, it surely represents the exception rather than the rule.

This Tuesday I reported on CFI's big day in church - CFI Gets the “Calling” to go to Church! (by Kevin Smith, CFI Canada board member)  - to engage in dialogue with the head reverand.  Click here for the audio recording

Sometime ago I reported on CFI Canada Board Member Kevin Smith being featured in the gay newspaper the Toronto Xtra on our Living Without Religion group ( Gaytheism! ).  Now Kevin provides comments on an exciting experience that resulted from that publication: 

In response to an article in the gay magazine XTRA about CFI Ontario's  Living Without Religion group, I was recently invited to attend church.  In the article, I spoke of a Canadian icon, Pastor Brent Hawkes of the gay positive Metropolitan Community Church in Toronto. Hawkes is an activist in his own right within the gay community. I still remember, with pride, the attention he received during the same sex marriage debate when he publicly married two same sex couples "illegally". I like that he is reviled by fundamentalist Christians as much as the devoutly godless are, such as me.

It was a couple of months after my article appeared when I got "the call(ing)" from Brent. As I did not go easy on believers, my first thought was that I was about to be, pardon the pun, crucified. I was encouraged and curious when he invited me out for dinner. We bonded immediately and had a fantastic discussion ranging  from religion and atheism to removing god from our national anthem. He presented me with an idea to speak at one of his Sunday evening services during Lent,  where his congregation would be discussing the big questions:  Does god exist? or Is there an afterlife? Having done little in the way of public speaking and putting myself in uncharted territory, a church of all places, I decided Thou shalt be done, on one condition -  during my visit if I see someone coming towards me carrying nails, a hammer and a large cross I would be out of there. He assured me if that happened he would be running out the door with me.

Other than the rare baptism, marriage or funeral, I do not attend church. I would rather go to a dentist and get my teeth pulled - well maybe that is a stretch but I think you get the point. I decided to attend the morning service on the "big day" to get a feel for the congregation. It was going to ease my nervousness or turn me into a basket case. Sitting on those hard pews re-confirmed my preference for sleeping in on Sundays. Little did they know that sitting amongst them was a heathen who would be gracing their stage hours from now. The choir comes in, the pastor walks out wearing his flowing vestments and now the start of the dreaded service.  Wait! - do I hear incredible gospel music, is that attractive male soloist not from some Broadway musical? Why do they have computer screens above the pews that during prayer suggest  " or if preferred do a silent meditation"? I know all the tricks of the faith trade- the music, ceremony and symbols to get one closer to Jesus. It did not work for me. What did work was a wonderful sense of bonding with my fellow humans. No god, no religion for me and that is allowed here.

My informal evening discussion with Brent went very well. I often joke that I like to attend debates with creationists to see what they look like up close. Now the tables were turned, these religious folk could see what an atheist looks like - just no poking please!  We found common ground on many issues related to the Humanist Manifesto - living an ethical life, kindness, compassion and seeking personal fulfillment. There were many jeers from the audience when we mentioned the Pat Robertsons of the world. I felt a union with them, almost. One declaration that I was asked to make was if the Pastor proclaimed that atheists were not immoral baby eaters than I would admit that religion is not a crutch for most religious people. I did have some issue with this. It is not a fair trade off to admit that an obvious is false for an obvious that, I had felt, is true. I stated that religious people are not baby eaters either although they have sacrificed them in the past. I did admit that religion is not a crutch for a liberal, forward thinking group like the MCC but it is for fundamentalist right wing(nuts). We committed to continue to work together on the many issues we have in common and finished  with a humanist "prayer". I presented my case well but didn't expect a standing ovation!  Oh, that was just the choir, sitting in the front row, getting up to return to the dais.

The atheist and gay movements have much in common although the latter has progressed further. Both groups have been marginalized  and ostracized by much of society, particularly by religious fundies. Starting as an in your face "We're here, we're queer. Get used to it" mantra the  homosexual evolution has matured to the point where more people don't  care about ones's sexual preferences - especially the generation x and y's. The atheist movement has been in the angry, militant phase since Dawkins and Hitchens came out, so to speak, with their "new atheist" books.  I feel that this has been an important first step to get attention and is still required in dealing with much of the fundamentalist media hogs. Recently there have been discussions to move forward from an atheist call to arms to a call for building bridges with the more liberal and freethinking believers. What better liaison than with the gay, straight, lesbian and transgendered of MCC. They pick their battles in a community spirit with grace and dignity.  They criticize the same lunatic religious fringe that we do. They embrace diversity,  including atheists and agnostics. Perhaps best of all - they are a blast to hang out with.

During my talk I mentioned to them that I have one more strike against me than they do. Not only am I gay but I am also an atheist. The warm reaction I received to that statement and the gracious welcome during my day at church made me feel like I had come home.

The Dalhousie University campus newspaper recently ran a piece reporting on the activities of our Dalhousie Atheist Community, and in particular featuring an interview with Derek Rodgers, one of the key leaders of the group.  The end of the piece come across so beautifully it's worth quoting in its entirely: 

He [Rodgers] maintains that humanist values “emphasize the inherent moral worth of people” And argues that traditional monotheistic religions tend to denigrate human beings with concepts like original sin or over-emphasize the importance of humanity in the grand scheme of things.

“Science helps us to understand our place in the universe; it shatters the idea that humans are imbued with importance.”

“Religion is not a prerequisite to being a moral person” he adds, pointing out that the search for meaning is a question taken up by non-believers and believers alike. “The most profound questions we can ask are, ‘is there meaning in life?’ ‘What is our place?’ For free thinkers, the tools and methods of science are the best ways of knowing” the answers to these questions. 

There are a couple dozen comments posted following the article, which is high compared to other articles and in particular a piece that followed close behind this one on the faith groups and the faith centre on campus which had all of 2 comments.  Some of these comments are fun to read.  They are also useful in beefing up this short blog post, so let me quote from some of the more intriguing ones:

I can relate to almost everything Derek talks about in this article... but the funny thing is, I am a Christian! I am a science nerd who is constantly fascinated by the new things we are learning about the universe we inhabit. I guess the only difference is that I credit it to God - not a punishing, vengeful God, but a loving one. I know this is something difficult to be convinced of, but it's just something I feel in my bones. Believe me, Bible tracts are not the way people find God. I have never understood the frightening 'you will burn in Hell' approach of many evangelists. Obviously in Christianity sin plays a large role, but it is eclipsed by redemption and love. Unfortunately this is not always evident, depending on who you talk to.

Makes you feel all nice and warm inside, but then you read a couple more, namely:

The best way to understand the nature of atheism is to understand its author. satan is its author.

It's important to remain conscious of the fact that satan had his origin in heaven, and is thoroughly familiar with the fact of the existence of God, heaven, the angels, hell and etc. Thus despite what you have been previously deceptively taught and despite the deceptive dictionary's meaning of atheism, atheism is properly defined as a denial of the existence of God in the midst of full knowledge that the true God does indeed exist. Atheism knows God exists; it is quite familiar with that fact, but it says "under no circumstance or situation will I admit to God's existence."

Atheism clearly perceives the fingerprints of God on all of creation, but refuses to admit He is the Creator. Atheism perceives the divine authorship of the TEN COMMANDMENTS, but refuses to admit that God is their Author. Atheism perceives the decorousness and perfection of the TEN COMMANDMENTS, but refuses to admit they are superior to all other laws. Atheism clearly perceives the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, but refuses to admit His divinity. If an atheist could see the wounds in the body of Christ and actually feel them with his hands, he would deny that the wounds are there. Atheism is deliberate effort to never admit the existence of God.

In order to properly understand the nature of atheism, one must understand the natures of righteousness and sin. The two principles are antithetical to one another. Since sin is antithetical to righteousness, its very antithetical nature seeks to nullify righteousness. Since it is an antithetical principle to righteousness, it must remain true to its nature even in the most insane instances. Therefore it must hate God even though God is righteous and has given it no just cause for its hatred. It is this antithetical principle, called "the law of sin" which is at work in the hearts of atheists causing them to reject God.

and finally one that gets right to the point:

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."

Oh yes, we have our work cut out for us.

{link}

This week for the fourth time I was invited to give presentations to a high school World Religions course.  About a year ago I reported in Skeptical Inquirer magazine on my first set of presentations in an article entitled " Talking Skepticism to Generation Y ."  I had stated at the time that an appropriate way to divide a two-part presentation would be by introducing critical thinking and scientific naturalism as overarching worldviews or ways of looking at knowledge, and then insisting that that would lead to skeptical inquiry on the one hand and secular humanism on the other.  This assessment still seems to hold.

The most enjoyable part of these experiences is always the questions that get raised.  It's curious how there are certain themes that seem to arise repeatedly.  I'm always ready for a question on life after death, immortality or heaven and hell, but what's fascinating is that this question often takes the form of puzzlement over our lack of belief in the existence of souls.  I found it odd that youth should be so concerned with issues of death and dying, but since they were I opted to play them a scene from A Brief History of Disbelief in which narrator Jonathan Miller, who is himself advanced in years, ponders his mortality and interviews an atheist on her deathbed. 

Beyond issues of death, some students have deep trouble coming to terms with a worldview that denies anything beyond the physical and temporal.  This was at the heart of repeated questions regarding psychics and ghosts.  There seemed to be an insistence that even if we rejected god we must accept some supernatural elements to the universe.  Case in point:  another question I get a lot is whether I believe in miracles.  In essence I believe students would do well with a course in critical thinking to give them the tools to cut through a lot of nonsense.  It's telling though that they seem to see religious beliefs as not really of a different kind than paranormal beliefs and other beliefs that are outside of science.  That inseparability of paranormal and religious nonsense is interesting, given our arbitrary separation of the two for political reasons in the freethought movement. 

The students would do well with such a dose of critical thinking because in my opinion they have still not come to terms with the notion that there is a difference between wanting something to be true and it actually being true.  Towards that end, I played them a video of Michael Shermer's Baloney Detection Kit, courtesy of Rrichard Dawkins Foundation (RDF) TV.  Shermer goes through a number of ways to test claims, especially when they coincide with your most cherished beliefs since it is in those situations that we are most vulnerable to deception.

When the teacher asked me for ways in which atheists were marginalized in Canadian society and I spoke about the issue of god in our national anthem, one student asked me quite seriously if I was Canadian.  I wasn't quite sure the meaning of the question, but it gave me an opportunity to insist that a real patriot does well to question elements in his or her country that are in need of change.  After all, if a true Canadian accepts without criticism every aspect of the country into which they are born, we would never pass new laws or throw governments out of power.

There also seemed to be a desire by the students to understand atheism and humanism in terms of the religions they had been studying.  So there was an insistence that our "Affirmations of secular humanism" were akin to a religious text, even after I gave several explanations as to why they were different, such as being written by people rather than god, the fact that they are constantly being re-evaluated, and the fact that no secular humanists embraces each and every point.  There was also a question about whether we had places of worship and holidays.  Finally, one questioner asked whether we didn't when necessary invoke god in dangerous situations.  I suppose she wanted to know if atheists weren't actually cheating when it was convenient. 

These sorts of innocent but crucially wrong beliefs that atheists are insincere or just another type of religion underline the deep necessity for world religions classes to regularly feature atheist spokespeople and units on secular humanism.

A final discovery I made, and perhaps the most important, was how hard it was to put the students at ease and get them to laugh.  They didn't find it amusing when I insisted they think for themselves rather than following authority figures and that I sincerely hoped they didn't take me for an authority, as I was hardly older than they.  Nor did they crack a smile when, after they had each read one of the affirmations of secular humanism out loud, I declared that they were now officially secular humanists. However, I am quite prepared to concede that this is more a discovery of my own lack of humour than anything at all regarding the students.

I thought I'd pass on some links to recent CFI media hits in Canada.  Last Friday I appeared on Strictly Right Radio on a panel arguing whether Canada is a Christian nation and whether we should be.  It’s a web-based political talk show that tackles issues from a conservative point of view, and a Christian perspective. Apparently they get some 13,000 listeners on their Friday show and another 100,000 downloads during the week.  Listen online at Strictly Rights Radio   (its Episode 5). 

The panel was 2 in favour of a Christian nation, namely Edward Wooley and Matthew O’brien, versus 2 opposed, namely Conservative college campus activist Brittany D’Arcy and myself.  The debate devolved quickly into a heated exchange between Wooley and myself, since both O’brien and D’Arcy weren’t terribly vocal.  It was interesting to witness how the use of so-called trivial elements of religiosity in such things as our Canadian national anthem and preamble to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (both invoke god though neither invocation have true legal force) were tossed around as though they somehow legitimize the establishment of a Christian country and more deep Christian values.  I had to make the case for the fact that the inclusion of religiosity in these places were symbolic but not foundational, while insisting that because secular values were foundation god should be removed from these more tangential areas where he unjustly remains.

Then on Saturday, we received rather flattering coverage in the Montreal Gazette:  Skeptics of the world unite - for real:   Montreal branch promotes science, holds discussions .  I especially liked how our science and critical thinking programs were the focus of the piece:

At a national level, CFI Canada has a strong focus on political advocacy, including the separation of church and state and science education.  But things are different in Montreal, as Sagos said the secular movement is already strong in the city.  “We’re really prioritizing skepticism and critical investigation into the universe more than some of the other branches, which tend to be more interested in atheism and religious criticism,” Trottier said.  Sagos said that in Montreal, there is “a great opportunity … to promote science in a wide sense, the way science informs art, music and culture in general, not just the kind of narrow boring, professorial view that often gets perpetrated.”

Indeed, because Canada is (thankfully) less inundanted with fundamentalism, especially certain highly secular areas like Quebec and BC, in those regions we are prioritizing science education and critical thinking.  It was nice to see a major Quebec newspaper playing up that angle, and we look forward to putting our money where our mouth is.

In 2001 the Canadian government had its last major census which, among other questions, polled our citizens on their religion.  This is precisely what they asked

22. What is this person’s religion?
Indicate a specific denomination or religion even if this person is not currently a practising member of that group. For example, Roman Catholic, Ukrainian Catholic, United Church, Anglican, Lutheran, Baptist, Greek Orthodox, Jewish, Islam, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, etc.
Specify one denomination or religion only __________
No religion ________

Does anything here bother you?  "Indicate a specific denomination or religion even if this person is not currently a practising member of that group. " So essentially the government seems to wish to label any lapsed and unbelieving catholic, muslim, jew, etc, with those observant or believing members of that tradition.  The effect this had was to drown out the numbers of atheists and agnostics in our country. 

When decision makers contemplate increasing public funding of religious schools, keeping God in our constitution or anthem, giving preference to the religious in charity law and in special accomodations, continuing to call on a deity to bless parliament or the legislatures, or keeping the offence of "blasphemous libel" in the criminal code of Canada, they desperately need an accurate assessment of just how many non-believers exist and are being marginalized by such practices.  Yet they don't get that. 

Many of us have been lobbying the Census consultation team with this concern.  We all get the same carbon copy response from Dale Johnston (in case it's useful to you this is Mr. Johnston's full contact info: Dale Johnston, Senior Adviser / Conseillère principale, Census Communications / Communications du Recensement, tel :(613) 951-0444, fax : (613) 951-0930, dale.johnston@statcan.gc.ca ).

Feedback from extensive consultations leading up to the 2011 Census indicates that the religion question in its current format provides the information required to meet the data needs of many users.  The question is open-ended and asks "What is this person’s religion?" Respondents can write in the box the name of a denomination or religious affiliation that best applies to them, including atheist or agnostic. They can also check the response for no religion.  In the 2001 Census, 17,810 individuals indicated that they were agnostic while 18,605 said atheist. Attached is a link to the table with the 2001 information.

That comes out to  36,415 atheists and agnotics in Canada in 2001, or 0.117% of the population.   Now does that sound remotely correct?  Not according to Phil Zuckerman, an expert in the sociology of religion at Pitzer College.  In his article " Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns ," from the Cambridge Companion to Atheism, (edited by Michael Martin, University of Cambridge Press, 2007), he writes:

... Guth and Fraser (2001) found that 28% of Canadians “show no evidence of religious salience or activity.” According to Norris and Inglehart (2004), 22% of those in Canada do not believe in God. According to Bibby (2002), when asked “Do you believe that God exists?” 6% of Canadians answered “No, I definitely do not” and another 13% answered, “No, I don’t think so,” for a total of 19% being classified as either atheist or agnostic. According to Gallup and Lindsay (1999:121), 30% of Canadians do not believe in God or a “Higher Power.”

This is damning.  Sociologist based out of Lethbridge, Alberta,  Reginald Bibby, who is no friend to atheists who enjoys railing about the negative effects of the rise of atheism on our society, nevertheless himself still concludes - in 2002 a mere year after the census - that there are 19% atheists and agnostics in Canada.  Gallup and Lindsay go further. 

Though more removed in time, in May 2008 the Canadian Press commissed Harris Decima to conduct a poll which found that " Many Canadians don't believe in a god: poll ", specifically, "23 per cent said they did not believe in any god..." and excitingly for the future of our country, "More than one in three (36 per cent) of those under the age of 25 said they did not believe in any god."

In summary, if Mr. Johnston, the Senior Adviser advising the Census group on how to get the best information to our decision makers, believes that a whopping 0.117% of respondents indicating atheism and agnostic means this Census is getting accurate data, we have a problem. That number if off by a factor of over 150!

Note that 16% of respondents in 2001 indicated "no religion."  Now not only does that number not fully account for what we would have expected even if every atheist and agnostic checked that box, but that category fails to differentiate between non-believers and those who are spiritual or subscribe to new age beliefs but are not religious, and those who are deists, both of which are large categories.  The Census question must be changed.  CFI is recommending the following: 

22. What is this person’s religion / worldview?
For example, atheist, agnostic, Roman Catholic, Ukrainian Catholic, United Church, Anglican, Lutheran, Baptist, Greek Orthodox, Jewish, Islam, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, etc.
Specify one religion or worldview only __________

This is an easy change, but it would have a huge effect.  Please help us.  If this question remains in its current flawed form, it will be another 10 years before we have a chance to improve it.

What can you do? Contact Statistics Canada and voice your concern. Ask to be counted as an atheist or agnostic on the 2011 Census.

Census consultation on the web: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/consultation/index-eng.cfm

Contact the Census consultation team:

E-mail:  censusconsultation@statcan.gc.ca

Mailing address: 
Census Consultation Team
Census Marketing
Statistics Canada
4th Floor, Jean Talon Building
170 Tunney's Pasture Driveway
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0T6

Fax:
613-951-4210 (Attention: Census Marketing)

For more information, contact Kevin Smith, Board of Directors, Centre for Inquiry Canada, (416) 312-7719 or info@cficanada.ca

This was part of an online panel that includes jewish, muslim, and christian reps.  To reach each panelist's remarks as well as public comment and Q & A, go here

Humanists hold an ambivalence regarding this season.  Like mostly everyone, we value generosity, altruism and fellowship, and emphasize the need to celebrate in a secular sense with friends and family, with good food and drinks, with songs and even decoration.

We see nothing wrong with adapting religious holidays to secular festivities, considering that Christmas is almost entirely a loose adaptation of various formerly pagan rituals. We also appreciate the sense of reinvigoration when we crack open brand-new calendars and behold the unwritten future.  But humanists see no intrinsic value to the holiday season apart from any we humans put in it, and worry that if we over-emphasize specific days and rituals, we fail to put the holiday in its proper historical, political and sociological context.

We must realize how differently the season is celebrated by the human family depending on where and when you are.  This not only provides us a valuable lesson in diversity but reminds us that while celebrating with our local family, there is a global family that needs our support, one to which we are related through the bonds of evolution.

Through a deep understanding of common descent and common humanity, humanist groups — like our friends in religious institutions — host many social and community support programs both locally and internationally, including food drives and blood clinics.
Humanists value self-reflection but are concerned if it is only taken seriously once a year.  Since most of us are atheists, an afterlife is out, so we must make the most of every day or at least pause for self-reflection following significant life events, rather than on arbitrary calendar dates.

Speaking personally now, my reflections revolve around the powerful symbols and metaphors afforded by the New Year.  As the Earth completes another revolution around the Sun, it is an ideal time to reflect on our place in the cosmos in a physical and philosophical sense.  It is an opportunity to reflect on how our knowledge of those big questions has advanced over the last year, thanks to scientific and critical inquiry.

The metaphor of a single year is often used to communicate vast time in science.  The astronomer Carl Sagan famously used a Cosmic Calendar in which 15 billion years of cosmic evolution was scaled down to a single year. Here, events can be put in context. The Big Bang takes place on New Year's Day. Our solar system is not born until Rosh Hashanah in mid September. Modern humans do not evolve until six minutes before the next New Year's Eve countdown.  Scaling down the evolution of life on Earth to a single year, we find single-celled organisms dominating the planet until Thanksgiving and dinosaurs not leaving until Christmas Day.  This is worth pondering.

Humanists see all beliefs as tentative and open to revision in the light of new information — a view we wish was more commonly embraced. Humanists value self-reflection over self-deception.  As our knowledge expands through discoveries made by other humans, it is an opportunity to think of what we discovered being wrong about this year. The Edge Annual question for 2008, part of the Third Culture, a forum for creating a culture of science, was "How have scientific findings or arguments changed your mind?" asked of the world's leading scientists and thinkers.

It is interesting — given the attributes of hubris and arrogance often attributed to scientists, and in particular atheists — to see people like the New Atheists Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett freely and even enthusiastically admitting to an important area of their own thinking in which they were fundamentally mistaken. 

I think we could all benefit from such an activity, no less than once a year.  The emphasis on New Year and end-of-year holidays stems from the remarkable discovery made by the ancients that there is regularity to the cycle of seasons and to life and the universe.  This crucial understanding of orderliness made through human faculties and now honed by scientific inquiry perhaps makes these holidays the perfect celebration of human reason.

The piece is really a profile of Kevin Smith, who runs the group, and I particularly like the way Kevin represented himself, and our organization.

Smith says the meetings are a lively mix of refugees from various faiths. “We have some Catholics, right-wing Pentecostals, Muslims, children of ministers. One woman was half an hour late because she stood outside, too scared to come into a roomful of non-believers. I guess she’d been told we were Satanists or baby-eaters or something!” he laughs.

This is the culmination of a great effort on the part of a number of our leaders.  The CFI Living Without Religion Group began about 5 years ago as a small support group called Coping Without Religion.  It's now both a support and general purpose discussion group for those experiencing problems as a result of having left organized religion or living without religion but dealing with colleagues, family members, friends, or lovers, who may still be in a religious tradition.  The group has grown steadily and now boasts a regular attendance of a dozen members. 

As Kevin said, We've seen pretty much everyhing:  muslims, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Evangelical Christians, Pentecostals, you name it.  Well, we're still waiting for the first Scientologist to step through the door, but the way they're flocking out of that cult, it shouldn't be a long wait.  Later this month the group is planning a special event to discuss issues related to dealing with the holiday season as a non-believer.  The group's success is premised on its open and non-judgemental atmosphere, and the way it frames discussion around themes that are general enough to get everyone talking.  The group is led by two individuals - one of whom was raised in a religious environment, and the other being a "third generation atheist."  This has allowed for a greater diversity of backgrounds to be brought to the leadership of the group. 

Living Without Religion leader Kevin Smith is given the last word in the article, and I love the way it concludes:

“We’re not trying to convert anyone. You can be religious, deist, agnostic, whatever, and still attend our meetings. We’re just creating a space to discuss these things.” Now, with his volunteer work and photography career, he’s pretty busy. But he was able to find the time to build a log cabin next to a river up north. “It’s sort of like my church,” he says. “A sanctuary to get away to and chill out and meditate. I look at the stars. They’re incredible up north, but I don’t attribute them to god. The universe is amazing enough as it is, and when I sit amongst the trees by the river, I feel connected to everything. We are all connected, aren’t we?”

{link}

You should start by reading this:  Magician Prescriptions: Ontario Poised to Let Naturopaths Prescribe  which was reposted in the National Post.

The following is a re-post of an important piece by Steve Thoms, Editor-in-Chief of Skeptic North, which follows up and clarifies some of the issues: 
Why Bill 179 Matters and is a threat to Medical Standards

Pretty messed up, huh?  Bill 179 is itself, not explicitly about granting naturopaths the right to prescribe.  Its original intent is to offer modest expansion of treatment powers to nurse practitioners, pharmacists, physiotherapists, midwives, dietitians, and medical radiation technologists.  After the first reading of the bill, that's all it was going to be, and despite the recommendation of the Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council (HPRAC), Naturopathic 'Doctors' (ND's) were explicitly shut out of the expansion of powers. After the Bill's second reading however, the recommendations of the HPRAC were put back in, and that ND's should be granted prescription rights was worked into the bill.  But not directly:  it is being done by amending the existing Naturopathy Act, 2007.  This process of amending existing acts is not unusual, but it is a slightly more roundabout way to introduce new health powers (and such, it makes it more difficult to repeal in the future).

Bill 179 now seeks to expand the ability of prescription of schedule 1 drugs to ND's.  This will be done by adding the following phrase to subsection 4(1) of the Naturopathy Act, 2007 (which deals with the authorized acts of a Naturopath): "Prescribing, dispensing, compounding or selling a drug designated in the regulations."

Further complicating this is that nowhere in the Naturopathy Act, 2007 is it clear what is defined by "Naturopath", and only defines it as someone who graduated from the College of Naturopaths of Ontario.  The problem with this 'standard' is that once a person leaves the college, they can practice just about anything that falls under the loosely defined umbrella of naturopathy, including (but not limited to) homeopathy, traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), Reiki, acupuncture, hydrotherapy (in today's form, it's known as colon cleansing), and therapeutic touch.  The naturopathic industry in Canada is largely self-regulated, and naturopathic disciplinary hearings are rare occurrences.  So not only does this inclusion allow for non-qualified medical personnel with questionable credentials to prescribe science-based medicine, but it also allows the same power to alt-med practitioners who have a demonstrable record of having treatments that are at best placebo (which violates medical ethics), at worst bogus and dangerous.

The other key amendment to the Naturopathy Act, 2007, deals with regulations in subsection 11, wherein the "Subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council and with prior review by the Minister, the Council may make regulations...".  Bill 179 would add,

    (g) designating the drugs that a member may prescribe, dispense, compound or sell for the purpose of paragraph 7 of subsection 4 (1), prescribing the purposes for which, or the circumstances in which, the designated drugs may be prescribed, dispensed, compounded or sold and prohibiting the prescribing, dispensing, compounding or selling of drugs other than the ones designated.

In other words, the government will create the list of drugs that the ND (and remember, it doesn't even have to be an ND, just someone who went to the Naturopathic College) can prescribe.  The list is not finalized yet, and may take up to three years to get to that point  But the list of recommendations made by the HPRAC is extensive, and includes anti-inflammatories, antibiotics and some narcotics (which is alarming on two counts:  1) naturopathic education teaches a non-scientific explanation about the nature of infection, and 2) Canada has been in the process of instituting tighter controls on narcotics like Demerol, and morphine, so why increase the number of untrained people that have access to this addictive drug?  Once the ND's have a set list of drugs that can be prescribed (as determined by the government), the hard part is over: the naturopathic lobbying groups can pressure the state to expand that list at anytime.

Most successful bills go through three readings (unless special circumstances warrant), and parliamentary convention dictates that the three readings roughly go through these stages: First reading - presentation, Second reading - refinement and fine-tuning, Third Reading - formality.  Once a bill gets passed the 2nd reading, it rarely gets rejected or modified for the third reading.  There is nothing that says the bill necessarily has to stay in its 2nd stage form, but there is also no reason it can't be defeated (besides convention of course, which is a powerful government tradition in Canada).  Defeating a bill at the third reading is unusual, but so is changing a bill so drastically in the 2nd reading in the way that Bill 179 has.

I can't offer better advice than what Scott said the other day: let your voice be known.  Let your MPP's know that this bill is a dangerous threat to healthcare standards.

This is not a freedom-of-choice issue for the supporters of naturopathy. There are no laws in the books that disallow anyone from seeking naturopathic treatment. This is about naturopaths and other pseudo-scientific modalities gaining a stamp of legitimacy that non-experts can use to wedge their way into scientific credibility.  Like the battles fought by chiropractors in the UK, naturopaths in Canada fight on political grounds, not evidence and science.  Their arguments don't stand up to scientific rigor, if they did, they'd be medicine.

While it is true that BC was the first province in Canada to grant ND's the right of prescription, it is generally the case that where Ontario goes, so goes the rest of Canada.  We need to stop them here.