After Christian Group Asks If You Can Be Good Without God; Atheists and Strangers Offer Clever Responses

Mary Poplin (advertised for the “God” side in the poster above) spoke at the University of Waterloo last year.  She was *terrible*.  For my admittedly biased account, see

http://recursed.blogspot.com/2011/02/pascal-lecture-another-year-another.html
http://recursed.blogspot.com/2011/02/mary-poplin-round-2.html
http://recursed.blogspot.com/2011/02/more-mary-poplin-nuttiness.html

“Good without a God?” is a ridiculous question since the idea of what one person’s god requires as “good” may be seen as not good in the eyes of what another person’s god requires!

I see more confused theists so trapped in their own bubble that they can’t look objectively at how ridiculous a question it is.  “Good without (the Christian) God?” or “Good without (the Hindu) Gods?”, those questions make sense but making it “a” God is ridiculous.

Good without God?  I’ll think about that when I get some free time.  At the moment, I’m too busy slaying the Midianite men and raping the Midianite women in order to fulfill the commandment of my Lord.

Wait this is for real right? This story is reminiscent 0f the church who put up a billboard which you’d expect from an atheist or sceptic group “Don’t believe everything you hear” is what I remember.

I like how it pretends its asking  a question but is just going to be a lecture promoting more misunderstanding about atheists.

Why are so many people bad with God?!?!?

You don’t have to read an awful lot of history to realize people haven’t been especially good with god either.  The bloody, gory history of Europe is largely, the history of Christendom.

Pro tip: there are a wide variety of less nakedly racist, sexist, ableist and generally assholish Nobel Prize winners who you can quote than James Watson. Kind of undermines the whole “we are good without God” thesis when you press someone who’s not really a very good person as the (literal) poster boy for your position.

A
2007 news article from the science journal Nature
on James D. Watson’s suspension as chancellor of the Watson School of
Biological Sciences at old Spring Harbor Laboratory in Long
Island:

James Watson, the geneticist
credited with the co-discovery of the structure of DNA, has abandoned
a book tour in Britain after suggesting that he thinks black people
may be less intelligent than whites.

In an interview with the London-based Sunday Times, published on
14 October, the 79-year-old said he was “inherently gloomy about
the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are
based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours —
whereas all the testing says not really”.

After the comments were picked up by other media on 17 October,
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in Long Island, New York, announced
that it was suspending Watson from ‘administrative duties’ as
chancellor of the Watson School of Biological Sciences there.

Watson said he regretted his comments, but criticism from senior
US colleagues was unsparing. “He has failed us in the worst
possible way,” said Henry Kelly, president of the Federation of
American Scientists. “It is a sad and revolting way to end a
remarkable career.”

From an editorial
by the same publication:

Watson certainly
has a track record in making distasteful remarks. He has on many
previous occasions voiced unpalatable views tinged with racism and
sexism, ranging from a desire to see a world full of genetically
engineered pretty girls to his belief that sex drive is related to
skin colour. He has been largely indulged over the years, mostly in
light of his towering achievement of 54 years ago in helping to
deduce the structure of DNA, his ensuing Nobel prize, and his role in
founding the Human Genome Project.

ouIs it
me, or does this guy sound quite terrible? Genius and pacifist
activism, as awesome though they might be, do not excuse having such
reprehensible views of humanity. He made an enormous contribution to
the field of genetics, but nevertheless, his bigoted views of
humanity disqualify him as someone who deserves to be lauded as a
leader and a voice for scientific inquiry, atheism, and skepticism.
To put this guy forth as proof that folks are good without god? Not a
good choice. You’ve given religious folks ammunition for ripping us
apart.Given the recent series of blow ups over sexism in the
atheist/skeptic community, I think folks should give such slip-ups a
little more thought. Would y’all really like to
see more people of color and women in these communities?Really?

Timberwraith, I offered some thoughts on this above as to specifically why we chose Watson for one of our posters and as you mention those specific reasons, I think we can all agree that there Watson isn’t *all* bad. 

Now, with that said, you’re absolutely right. It is a mistake to focus on someone with his background. I can tell you right now that our group, and our officers are committed to fighting racism, sexism and prejudice in all forms. Please take a look at our about page, where we tried to make this as explicit as possible. 

http://ahaslo.org/about/

I can say, specifically that the recent controversies surrounding diversity in the secular community have been very influential in how AHA! approaches these topics, and that while Watson was a mistake for the reasons you suggest, that someone could interpret his being featured on our poster as an endorsement of his prejudice is something we are taking very seriously and working to fix. 

Let me also say that what I am saying is not merely words, but that our group is pursuing active involvement with the GLBT alliance, Gender Equity Center, Sexual Assault recovery and Prevention, and various other groups who fight discrimination on campus. 

If you have any specific suggestions for how we can do better, please let us know. 
 

Aside from the objections to Watson already raised, there is another reason you should reconsider this particular poster with this particular quotation:

Oh no, absolutely not…
The biggest advantage to believing in God is you don’t have to understand anything, no physics, no biology.

I wanted to understand.”

The first line in that quote seems at first glance to be answering “No” to the question at the top of your poster, “Good without god?” 

My initial reaction was “What???” Only after I noticed “is” in the line “James Watson is” did I realize that his first words are answering some unknown yes-or-no question. Why are you including that first part before the elipsis? It is apparently a fragment of some completely unrelated conversation. 

The rest of the quotation that you selected does not seem related to the question at the top either. What does not understanding physics, biology, or whatever he meant by “anything” have to do with being good with or without a god?

The only answer to the question of his being good is the last thing that is visually noticed, the caption under Watson’s photo mentioning his anti-war, anti-nuclear weapons and environmentalist activism. 

A very confusing poster.

I teach at Cal Poly, where AHASLO is, know some of them well (Hi all!), but even going beyond that bias, anyone can see that they owned right up to the mistake, just like we all hope we would, too, in a similar situation.

And the best thing is, it really doesn’t cost them anything to admit their mistake.  I know they truly believe in the best type of diversity, would stand firmly against the worst things Watson has said, so it doesn’t cost them anything to reaffirm those stances.

AHASLO may need editorial help with their posters, but their intellectual posture, not to mention their hearts, is in the right place.

Yeah, what a terrible choice. Watson would be a fantastic choice for a “Can you be a good scientist without God?” reply, but he is terrible for a response to “Can you be good without God?” Why in the world would anyone choose someone who is well known for blatantly sexist and racist comments as a moral example? This poster will be laughable to anyone familiar with Watson, or anyone who knows about Wikipedia. Cal Poly Alliance of Happy Atheists, way to make the Christians point for them!

No, Anh, we(AHASLO) don’t. It was a combination of many factors that led to that poster being posted, and it was a mistake. We’re working to fix it, in addition to our previously planned activism with various diversity groups on campus.

Thank you Richard for your comments. That is another issue entirely, and we’ll be sure to take note of that in future poster designs.

With respect, this sounds a bit like the common objection that religious fundamentalists give so much to charity. Actually, it sounds a lot like that.

Since you asked for a suggestion, how about Ted Turner? Not a Nobel Prize winner, but still a nice person.