Vitaly Ginzburg, Russian theoretical physicist, Nobel Laureate, and one of the fathers of the Soviet hydrogen bomb, died of cardiac arrest last night.

He was a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the International Academy of Humanism .

An outspoken and famous Russian atheist, he authored a number of books on religion and atheism, and often spoke out against the encroachment on the secular Russian State by the Russian Orthodox Church. He would refer to himself as a "secular Jew" and a "secular humanist."

From the Associated Press article on his death:

A vehement atheist, Ginzburg strongly opposed the growing role of the Russian Orthodox Church in state affairs after the 1991 Soviet collapse, protesting its attempts to have a say in political and secular matters and introduce religious lessons in schools.

"By teaching religion in schools, these Orthodox scoundrels want to lure away children's souls," he told a Russian newspaper in 2007.

and

Despite his age, Ginzburg remained active as a scientist and public figure. He also was a staunch believer in the global triumph of democracy and "secular humanism" to help overcome such threats as Islamic terrorism, poverty and AIDS.

"I am still inclined to believe in the brilliant future of mankind," he said in the autobiography.

Read the AP story here .

From the article:

No one can ignore the importance of Judeo-Christian values to the history of Western cultures, and no one can deny that faith is a source of virtue for many people. However, in the evolution of humanity, religion arose after the capacity for reason and empathy--the conscience. And in determining which values are best, we have no alternative but to rely on conscience.

This is the secular message [of the ads]: Ethics comes from below, not above. It is a message that reaches out to believers as well as atheists--and anyone else who might be riding the subway.

Read the whole article here .

From the website:

It’s election day in the U.S. and with Democratic candidates facing tough races in several states, we take a look at what the left can learn from religious organizations, who manage to keep people coming back week after week. Does religion have a place in social justice movements, and does the right have a lock on religious motivation to act?

Joining us to debate the proper place of religion and spirituality on the Left are Michael De Dora of the Center for Inquiry, Reverend Osagyefo Sekou, Senior Minister of Lemuel Haynes Congregational Church, Kim Gandy, Fellow, Institute of Politics, Harvard Kennedy School and former president, National Organization for Women, and Rabbi Michael Feinberg, Executive Director of the Greater New York Labor-Religion Coalition.

Check out the video clip here .

A couple weeks ago, on October 20th, I attended a large public lecture by the stars of SyFy’s hit TV show The Ghost Hunters at the University of Missouri, along with fellow St. Louis Skeptics Mark McNamara, Michael Blanford (of the St. Louis Science Center) and Christina Stephens (of Ziztur.com fame).

Repeatedly telling the audience of over 500 that they weren’t professional public speakers (which they actually are, by very definition), Ghost Hunters Jason Hawes and Grant Wilson gave a really polished, funny and engaging presentation on their version of paranormal investigation (which one might rather generously describe as pseudoscientific ). A few things stood out as I listened to and enjoyed their talk:

1. They peppered their remarks with rudimentary kinds of skepticism, such as that sometimes a report of a ghost may just be a result of a claimant's “mental illness,” or that they “find equal success debunking something as they do finding credible evidence of the paranormal,” or that orbs -- which many mystery mongers tout as photographic proof of spirit-sightings -- are, in fact, merely dust, bugs, moisture, or reflections of light in the camera, and not at all evidence of ghostly apparitions.  This kind of skepticism seemed only to make their audacious paranormal claims all the more believable to the large audience. I mean, after all, they say they are skeptics!
2. They were average joes, not know-it-all academics. Effectively pulling-off off a blue-collar schtick, they repeatedly reminded the audience that Hey, they were just plumbers, after all!, which made them seem approachable and likable and earnest in a normal-guy sort of way.
3. They were just nice guys: I mean, they don’t even charge to conduct paranormal investigations! They investigate the paranormal only to help those afflicted by ghosts, and this fact got an approving applause after they announced it. (Why would they need to charge any money, I’d ask, since they are stars of one of the most popular cable TV shows!)
4. They were really funny. Again, polished . Professional skeptics, many of whom are rather academic and armchair, when lecturing at a scientific skeptical conference or at a university lecture series, would be hard-pressed to craft a more entertaining and fun talk on these topics. I know of what I speak, having treated exactly these kinds of topics at public lectures at universities all over the U.S.  The Ghost Hunters' timing with one-liners, light-hearted ribbing of one another, slap-stick Three Stooges-like clips of pranks they (or ghosts?) have pulled on the various TV show paranormal investigators, and repeated sexual innuendos and fart jokes fit for plumbers, were all expertly performed to great comedic effect.
5. They sold the audience on the idea that anyone can be a paranormal investigator, and that it is a really fun way to spend an evening with your buddies. If they could do it, you could, too, and you could enjoy yourself just as much as they do while hunting down the haunting dead.

There are some amazing things to report about their talk, which I will save for future posts.

Dowd is the author of Thank God for Evolution: How the Marriage of Science and Religion Will Transform Your Life and Our World . (The book has been endorsed by 6 Nobel laureates and other science luminaries, including some noted skeptics, and by religious leaders across the theological spectrum.)

For a number of years, he and his wife, science writer Connie Barlow, have been on tour on the road, sharing their "sacred view of evolution" with religious and atheistic audiences alike. Much of his work aims to encourage the devoutly religious to take the challenge of New Atheists seriously, and to adopt a "naturalized religion."

Tragically, among other health problems, he was recently diagnosed with advanced lymphoma, and has been undergoing a chemotherapy regimen. Before he learned of the life-threatening lymphoma, he and his wife recorded a podcast answering the question "If I had only one message left to communicate before I die, what would it be?" 

In the spirit of listening to various viewpoints on these issues, I really think Dowd's remarks are worth hearing, along with his episode on naturalizing religion, which touches on Blasphemy Day, and fault lines within the freethought movement, as well as the need to get the supernatural out of religion. Listen to them through the links below:

The New Atheists as God's Prophets
Naturalizing Religion

If you would like to send the Reverend Dowd your well-wishes, please send to the following mailing address, posted with permission:

Rev. Michael Dowd
5246 Mutiny Bay Rd.
Freeland, WA 98249

Should organized humanism try to replace religion by becoming itself quasi-religious? Is that the best alternative to the "new atheism" which causes the "old humanists" to wring their hands? (And I am curious if the new atheism really needs an alternative.)

From the article:

When you think about it, organized humanism is a hard sell. Do you like paying dues and making forced pleasantries over post-service coffee cake, but can’t stand beautiful architecture and professionally trained musicians? If so, organized humanism may be for you. Greg Epstein (the “humanist chaplain” at Harvard and the author of Good without God ) is a lovely person, but I’ve heard him sing, and I think I’ll stick to Bach, Arvo Pärt, and Kirk Franklin for my spiritual uplift. Do we really need an institution for people who find Reform Judaism and Unitarian Universalism too rigid? Yes. It’s called the weekend.

Austin is onto something here, I think. Read his original editorial, Decomposing Humanism: Why Replace Religion? , here .

Fox News conservative commentator Sean Hannity calls the ads "curious" because they say you can live a "great life without God." He quotes Michael De Dora, Jr., who heads up CFI's branch in New York City:

A million of us have found or created natural morality and lead good, productive and meaningful lives without appeal to religious dogma or God.

And then Hannity asks "Can you imagine the outrage if a Christian group put pro-God ads in the New York City subways? What outrage!"

In fact, Christian groups have put pro-God as in the New York City subways for years, as have Muslim organizations, as reported by none other than Fox News last year: Radical Imam Promotes Pro-Islamic Ad Campaign to Run on New York Subways .

Barbara Bradley Hagerty's piece today on NPR focused not only on these stated aims of Blasphemy Day, but on a supposed "bitter rift" and "national debate" among secularists and atheists about best strategies to adopt in order to advance the secularist, scientific worldview.

First, what Hagerty got wrong in the story:

1. "Blaspheming the Holy Spirit" is not at all a component of Blasphemy Day. Ron Lindsay clarifies this point in a recent episode of Point of Inquiry , as well as arguing that the goal of Blasphemy Day is not merely, nor primarily, to offend.

2. PZ Myers didn't desecrate a communion wafer as part of Blasphemy Day, but I believe it was over a year before, as he blogged about on July 24, 2008 .

3. Since a CFI volunteer who was quoted in the article could "speak his mind," there was an implication that a paid staffer of CFI was not allowed to. Hagerty stated that it was a "curious development" for a group that promotes free speech to forbid staff from speaking freely. Let me state it clearly: No one at CFI was ever told to refrain from taking interviews with NPR. It is true that some of the Center for Inquiry staff in Washington DC, after figuring that the story might be covering internal disagreements at CFI (such as recent transitions in leadership), chose completely on their own not to speak to the media.

Now, What Hagerty got right:

1. She covered the story in the first place. Hagerty is an important religion correspondent. As such, she is interested in the changing terrain of secularism in the United States, as she should be. I think it is fantastic that she is covering the growing movement of nonreligious and skeptics.

2. Paul Kurtz is very worried that the "new atheists" will set the movement back. While I disagree with Kurtz here, he does genuinely feel that the New Atheists are not much different than the old atheists, such as the abrasive Madalyn Murray O'Hair, and that the way to really advance the secular agenda is to soft-peddle it somewhat, by working to try to avoid offending believers, unlike O'Hair did. Kurtz emphasizes secular ethics much more than religious skepticism these days. To hear him make these arguments himself, check out his appearances on Point of Inquiry : " A Kinder, Gentler Secularism ," and " The New Atheism and Secular Humanism ."

In my view, some of his appall at the New Atheism may be stemming from an understandable sense of hurt pride that after laboring in the vineyards after many years, he never had a best-seller like the "New Atheists" have had. (I feel like I noticed this same kind of envious or resentful posture in others, especially some secularist Biblical scholars who have been associated with CFI, who would often privately decry Dawkins' and Hitchens' and Harris' supposed lack of expertise in theology and Biblical criticism.) To be clear, I believe Paul Kurtz has done more than any other person in the last 50 years to create the secular and humanist movement as it has been until recently. I just think that it must be hard for him to see others come along and be so successful at reaching out to new people with a very similar message.

My views on some additional misunderstandings some folks may have:

1. CFI is in no sense moving away from its historical focus on fair-minded criticism of reigning mythologies (both religious, and paranormal), and on advancing science, humanism and reason. While only Ron Lindsay was quoted as much in the piece, in fact, the direction CFI has taken in recent months is only a re-emphasis of its core mission on science and reason. The new mission, adopted earlier this year under Lindsay's direction, is "to foster a secular society based on science, reason, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values." The old mission, less focused in my view, was "to promote and defend science, reason, and freedom of inquiry in every area of human endeavor." Notice the stronger focus on secularism and humanism in CFI's new mission statement.

2. There is no "bitter rift" or "national debate" about Blasphemy Day or the future focus of CFI. There was near unanimity at CFI in support of Blasphemy Day. A small number of dissenters include Paul Kurtz, a couple staffers, and a volunteer or two. But again, no "bitter rift" nor "national debate."

3. There is room for multiple strategies to advance a shared skeptical, secular and humanist mission. CFI is the leading organization of its kind, and, as such, has adopted many different strategies to reach out to different publics: publishing, secularist and pro-science community centers, campus outreach, international programs, lobbying on Capitol Hill, digital media and outreach, educational programs and courses, etc., etc. There are many ways to skin a cat.

4. CFI is not anti-religious, but is openly critical of destructive aspects of religion. For instance, some of our best friends on the campuses are religious organizations who agree with us that the kinds of questions we focus on (meaning of life, existence of God, whence morals, evolution versus creationism, role of religion in education and in government, limits of science, etc.) are important questions everyone should be asking, even if these organizations disagree deeply with us about the answers. And on Capitol Hill, we work in coalition with many religious organizations to advance a pro-science and secular agenda (in the broader, church-state separation sense of "secular").

5. Even as CFI is not anti-religious, we work to promote alternatives to the paranormal and religious worldviews which we think are harmful (as Paul Kurtz was getting at in the NPR story). These alternatives are based on science, reason, and humanist values, and not on atheist dogma, or creeds pronounced by beloved leaders of small non-profit organizations.

6. As far as blasphemy goes, even Paul Kurtz himself has argued a few years ago in an essay in Free Inquiry about the Danish Muslim Cartoons that "we should defend blasphemy by committing blasphemy." After all, in our view, blasphemy is literally a victimless crime.

I just skimmed this entry, and was reminded of a Churchill quote: "Sorry this is so long, I didn't have time to make it shorter." But alas, our XBOX 360, and my spouse, await.

Noteworthy is the facial expression Dawkins has at minute 1:48 in the video clip, in reaction to O'Reilly saying:

"Here's the problem I have with throwing my lot in with science. Science doesn't advance the human condition in any moralitistic way. Jesus did."

This easily ranks in my favorite of Dawkins interviews. I have never seen Bill O'Reilly even somewhat apologize for yelling before.

He further says that:

Like faithful Christians awaiting the return of the Messiah, the Nobel Committee awaits the 'good works' of Obama.

He also says that Obama has a "simplistic hope for World Peace."

Read the complete press release from The National Republican Trust PAC here