Category: debate

Pinker vs. Douthat debate: Do we need God?

March 12, 2026 • 11:15 am

The Free Press and CBS News (Bari Weiss is involved in both organizations) is hosting an ongoing series of “town hall” interviews and debates, the topic being “Things that matter.” The series is sponsored by the Bank of America.

A few weeks ago the series included a episode of interest to many of us, a debate between Steven Pinker and Ross Douthat on “Do we need God.” These gentlemen should need no introduction, save to add that this debate probably arose because of Douthat’s new book, Believe: Why Everyone Should be Religious, a book that he promoted widely (see some of my takes on it here). The video of that debate went online yesterday.

Here’s part of the website’s intro to the debate:

Today, nearly a third of Americans claim no religious affiliation, which would have been unimaginable a generation ago.

But the story of religion in the West is much more complicated than simple decline. In the past few years, we’ve entered what feels like a religious revival, or at least a leveling off in the decline of faith. Even as our society becomes more technologically advanced, many people are searching more intensely for meaning, purpose, and moral clarity. In other words, the question of faith hasn’t disappeared. If anything, it is even more urgent.

For years, intellectuals predicted that as religion receded, society would become calmer, more rational, and more scientific. Shed religious superstition, the theory went, and we would inherit a more enlightened public life. Instead, many societies haven’t become less fervent so much as differently fervent—driven by conspiracy, tribalism, and forms of moral conflict that often feel almost cosmic in intensity.

The premise of our Things That Matter debates, sponsored by Bank of America, is simple but essential. We want to revive the tradition that has long made the United States exceptional: our ability to argue openly across deep divides while still remaining part of the same civic community. Disagreement does not have to mean contempt. And since religion is one of the most politically charged topics in public life, it felt fitting to begin here.

Where does morality come from without God? Are our ideas of human dignity, moral obligation, and human rights ultimately grounded in a transcendent reality—or are they products of human reason alone? Are the apparent benefits of religion simply the community and rituals it nurtures, rather than the truth of its claims?

To explore these questions, we brought together two formidable public intellectuals: cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker, author of Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress, and New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, author of Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics.

You can hear the 57-minute debate by clicking below (I hope). It’s moderated by lawyer and commentator Sarah Isgur, who seems to be a secular Jew. It begins with summaries by Douthat and Pinker (about 4 minutes each), and then Isgur asks questions to Pinker and Douthat, questions that were clearly given to the debaters in advance (they have notes to answer them).

My take: Pinker wiped the floor with Douthat. Of course I’m biased, but Douthat’s arguments were lame, and he didn’t even dwell on the “science-y” arguments he made when touting his book (fine-tuning, consciousness, etc.). (Steve could have rebutted those, too.) Instead, Douthat says that “God self-evidently exists” and doesn’t rebut Pinker’s arguments showing the well-known negative correlation between religiosity of countries (or American states) and their well being. Douthat also makes quasi intelligent-design arguments, one of which is that our minds were created by God to help us understand the universe. I guess he doesn’t understand evolution.

Audience questions, chosen in advance, begin about 19 minutes in (the debaters apparently knew the selected audience questions, too). They’re interspersed with more questions from the moderator.  The best of her questions is at the end (55:15): “What is something that each of you would concede tonight—a point that the other made that you found compelling—that made you perhaps question some of your own positions on this?”

I would have preferred more of a slugfest, one in which Pinker and Douthat addressed each other, as they often do in Presidential debates (there’s a bit of that). This is all polite and respectful, but that detracts from what I like to see in a debate. But that’s due to the organizers, not the participants. And, sadly, there are no before-and-after votes. In my view, humanism won hands down over religion.

CBS/Free Press launches a series of debates and town halls. Coming up: Steve Pinker to debate Ross Douthat on God

February 12, 2026 • 9:10 am

In conjunction with its new sponsor, The Free Press, CBS News is launching a series of debates and town hall presentations. One of them is a debate about God featuring Steve Pinker and Ross Douthat, which should be a barn-burner. I am informed that that debate will take place on February 26, and will be broadcast live.

Douthat, as you know, has been flogging his new pro-Christianity book Believe: Why Everyone Should be Religious, and I’ve discussed excerpts published by Douthat here. It appears to be the usual guff, arguing that stuff about the Universe that we don’t understand, like consciousness and the “fine-tuning” of the laws of physics, comprise evidence for a creator God. Assessing all gods, Douthat (a pious Catholic) finds that the Christian one appears to be the “right” god. Are you surprised?

Pinker is an atheist, and has written about nonbelief from time to time in his books, but has not written an entire book on it.  I look forward to this debate, which will be broadcast live on THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, so mark your calendars. Pinker will surely be ready to answer Douthat’s shopworn “evidence,” so it should be fun.

Click below to access the general announcement.

Below: the series’ rationale and its upcoming debates and interviews. No dates and times have been announced save my finding out that Pinker vs. Douthat is on February 26.

This is, of course, the result of Bari Weiss becoming Editor of CBS News, and I’m not sure how I feel about this endeavor. Note that it’s sponsored by the Bank of America.

We live in a divided country. A country where many cannot talk to those with whom they disagree. Where people can’t speak across the political divide – or even sometimes across the kitchen table.

THINGS THAT MATTER aims to change that.

Sponsored by Bank of America, THINGS THAT MATTER is a series of town halls and debates that will feature the people in politics and culture who are shaping American life. The events will be held across the country, in front of audiences who have a stake in the topics under discussion.

This launch comes on the heels of CBS News’ successful town hall with Erika Kirk, which drove double-digit ratings increases in its time slot and generated 192 million views across TikTok, Instagram, Facebook and X – making it CBS News’ most-watched interview ever on social media.

JAC: Note that the town hall with Erika Kirk was NOT a success; it was lame and uninformative. There’s a link to the video below. Back to the blurb:

The events take Americans into the most important issues that directly affect their lives – immigration, capitalism, public health, criminal justice, foreign policy, artificial intelligence and the state of politics. The debates echo the country’s 250th anniversary, showing how the power of America’s earliest principles – civil, substantive discussion, free of rancor – have immense value today.

“We believe that the vast majority of Americans crave honest conversation and civil, passionate debate,” said Bari Weiss, editor-in-chief of CBS News. “This series is for them. In a moment in which people believe that truth is whatever they are served on their social media feed, we can think of nothing more important than insisting that the only way to get to the truth is by speaking to one another.”

Bank of America has joined THINGS THAT MATTER as its title sponsor. Tracing its lineage to 1784, Bank of America is sponsoring the series in support of dialogue and debate during the country’s 250th anniversary year.

THINGS THAT MATTERwill kick off in the new year. An early look includes:

Town Halls:

  • Vice President JD Vance on the state of the country and the future of the Republican Party.

  • OpenAI CEO Sam Altman on artificial intelligence.

  • Maryland Governor Wes Moore on the state of the country and the future of the Democratic Party.

  • In case you missed it: Turning Point USA CEO Erika Kirk on political violence, faith and grief – watch it here.

Debates:

  • Gen Z and the American Dream: Isabel Brown and Harry Sisson. Should Gen Z Believe in the American Dream?

  • God and Meaning: Ross Douthat and Steven Pinker. Does America Need God?

  • The Sexual Revolution: Liz Plank and Allie Beth Stuckey. Has Feminism Failed Women?

Readers are welcome to weigh in below on the topics and format of this forum.

Melanie Phillips explains, once again, why anti-Zionism is antisemitism

January 9, 2026 • 11:30 am

Reader Norman sent me the first video below saying, “in one of your posts the other day you gave a link to an article about how anti-Zionism = antisemitism.”  Yes, I’ve frequently said that and in fact did so in the last post. And I think the equation is clearly true. For those on the left justifying anti-Zionism, the claim that it is NOT antisemitism rests on an incorrect construal of “anti-Zionism” as “criticism of the politics of Israel/Netanyahu”. Alternatively, “anti-Zionism could mean “favoring a one-state solution, a state that includes both Palestinians and Jews—and we all know what that means for the Jews.

As the moderator defines it in the video, “anti-Zionism” is “opposition to the existence of a Jewish state in the territory defined as the historic land of Israel or Palestine” and that view implicitly favors the erasure or destruction of Israel, which to any reasonable person is antisemitic (where would the Jews go?). Further seeing the “anti-Zionism” trope as being politically okay ignores the fact that nearly all Muslim states in the Middle East are explicitly religiously Muslim as part of their government (viz., the formal name of Iran is “The Islamic Republic of Iran”). In contrast, while Israel was approved as a homeland for Jews after WWII, there is no requirement for residents to adhere to the tenents of Judaism, for 20% of the population are Arab Muslims and many of the resident “Jews” are, like me, atheists who are culturally Jewish. To show the difference, try being gay in Gaza or Iran as opposed to Israel.

So, below is what Norman wanted me to see: a short speech by British author and commentator Melanie Phillips.  It’s part of a four-person intelligence² debate that took place six years ago. The proposition debated is is “Anti-Zionism is antisemitism.” Phillips’s bit, agreeing with the proposition, starts 47 seconds into the video, and I’ve begun the video at that point. Her bit ends at 10:28, so the part to listen to is about ten minutes long. The rest is some person, not part of the formal debate, banging on.

As Norman says, “this is one of the most forceful and succinct statements I have heard or read.” It is indeed. And despite its title, Mehdi Hasan does not explode here. That is in the second video below, which gives the entire two-hour debate.

Here’s the whold video, including besides Mehdi Hassan (his speech starts at 35:45) and Melanie Phillips, Einat Wulf (who agrees with Phillips; her speech starts at 24:00) and Ilan Pappé, an Israeli who favors a “one-state solution” (his speech starts at 12:25). The audience, clearly on the side of Hassan and Pappé throughout, defeated the motion.  They are wrong.

Bill Maher vs. Jon Lovett on trans rights

February 25, 2025 • 9:30 am

Jon Lovett is identified by Wikipedia as

. . . .  an American podcaster, comedian, journalist, and former speechwriter. Lovett is a co-founder of Crooked Media, along with Jon Favreau and Tommy Vietor. All three formerly worked together as White House staffers during the Obama administration. Lovett is a regular host of the Crooked Media podcasts Pod Save America and Lovett or Leave It. As a speechwriter, he worked for both President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton when she was a United States senator and a 2008 presidential candidate.

And of course you know who Bill Maher is.  In the ten-minute talk argument below, Lovett and Maher discuss issues of kids with gender dysphoria, including these questions:

a.) Can schools hide a child’s desire to transition sex roles from the parents?

b.) Are there social influences that can promote children to want to change gender roles beyond “feeling like you’re in the wrong body.”

c.) Can the government be allowed to ban “gender-affirming care”?

d) Are children dying (presumably by suicide) because they aren’t allowed to transition?

Lovett actually comes off worse here, mainly because he’s spouting Biden-era dogma about sex and making statements that are scientifically dubious. However, I have to call out Maher near the beginning when he says “Obviously sex is more complicated than just two sexes.”  Yes, sex is complicated, but there are just two sexes. This is the mistake I discussed the other day.

Maher also conflates gender dysphoria with sexual attraction. But in the main, Maher makes some good points, and above all emphasizes that these are questions to be debated, not quashed by “progressives” who slander everyone trying to discuss them as “transphob” or “bigots”.

Maher calls the social conditioning of gender-dysphoric kids “entrapment”, which he defines as “suggesting that people do something that they are not going to do,” or “Putting an idea in someone’s head that wouldn’t be there otherwise.” (In this case, the idea is that the child/adolescent is trapped in the wrong body.)

Lovett, in contrast denies the prevalence of social influence on transitioning, while Maher takes Abigail Shrier’s view that many (but not all) children who decide they are in the wrong body are pushed to transition by peers, doctors, and teachers.  As he says, premature transitioning is medically dangerous and perhaps superfluous, not to mention an issue that can hurt Democrats who support it out of virtue signaling. Maher: “To take that risk at that age, before you know shit about anything. . . ”

Lovett makes the familiar but incorrect argument that without gender-affirming care, many kids would die.  He draws an analogy with cardiology, in which heart surgeons sometimes screw up during surgery and their patients die. But that’s a bogus argument because heart surgeons operate (and patients consent) if the consequences of not having surgery are dire. The difference is that we have enough experience to know the risks and benefits of heart surgery.

But this is not the case for gender dysphoria. Withholding hormones and surgery from kids who are dysphoric does not as often touted, leead to depression and death. (“Do you want a dead son or a live daughter?, some say.)  Yet studies show that about 80% of gender-dysphoric children who are not driven to take hormones and surgery resolve as gay (no medical dangers there!) or even cis.  That is a strong argument against the kind of “gender-affirming care” that puts dysphoric kids on a one-way escalator leading first to puberty blockers and then to hormone treatment and/or surgery.

Maher also seems to know more about the recent science than does Lovett, mentioning the ten-year Olson-Kennedy study showing that puberty blockers, touted by ideologues like Lovett as essential to saving lives, do not in fact improve the well being of gender-dysphoric childrene. From the NYT:

The doctor, Johanna Olson-Kennedy, began the study in 2015 as part of a broader, multimillion-dollar federal project on transgender youth. She and colleagues recruited 95 children from across the country and gave them puberty blockers, which stave off the permanent physical changes — like breasts or a deepening voice — that could exacerbate their gender distress, known as dysphoria.

The researchers followed the children for two years to see if the treatments improved their mental health. An older Dutch study had found that puberty blockers improved well-being, results that inspired clinics around the world to regularly prescribe the medications as part of what is now called gender-affirming care.

But the American trial did not find a similar trend, Dr. Olson-Kennedy said in a wide-ranging interview. Puberty blockers did not lead to mental health improvements, she said, most likely because the children were already doing well when the study began.

“They’re in really good shape when they come in, and they’re in really good shape after two years,” said Dr. Olson-Kennedy, who runs the country’s largest youth gender clinic at the Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles.

Although we the American taxpayers funded this study through the NIH, the results have not yet been released. Why? Because they don’t support the dogma that puberty blockers save lives. Also from the NYT:

In the nine years since the study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and as medical care for this small group of adolescents became a searing issue in American politics, Dr. Olson-Kennedy’s team has not published the data. Asked why, she said the findings might fuel the kind of political attacks that have led to bans of the youth gender treatments in more than 20 states, one of which will soon be considered by the Supreme Court.

“I do not want our work to be weaponized,” she said. “It has to be exactly on point, clear and concise. And that takes time.”

This is shameful. To suppress important data because they “might fuel political attacks” or go against “progressive” ideology is totally unethical.  Maher knows about that study, as do many of us; but apparently Lovett either does not or deliberately ignores it.

Maher also makes the point that insistence on possibly harmful medical intervention without knowing its long-term effects is a stand that can—and probably has—harmed Democrats. (Yes, some Republicans take this stand because they really don’t want trans people around, but you can take that stand for the right reasons, too.)

Maher’s point, with which I agree completely, is that you don’t go ahead with possibly harmful medical treatment until you know what the harms actually are. 

Without further ado, here is the debate, which is mildly acrimonious:

Holden Thorp, the editor of science, jettisons the journal’s ideological neutrality

January 9, 2025 • 9:00 am

This piece, by a pseudonymous researcher with a Substack, is another example of scientists decrying the journals and editors who make political statements in public. By so doing, the author points out, they simply decrease public confidence in science and scientists (down 10% in just five years, though still high). In other words, violating institutional neutrality in science is counterproductive. When Nature endorsed Biden four years ago, all it did was to erode confidence in the journal, and in U.S. scientists, while not moving any voters toward the Democrats.

Click the headline below to read the article for free:

The author speaks specifically about Holden Thorp, the editor of Science, certainly the most prestigious science journal in America. Thorp said this after the Democrats lost the election:

Holden Thorp, the Editor-in-Chief of Science, another preeminent science journal—the kind publishing in which makes or breaks careers of aspiring academics and the kind that defines funding and research strategies the world over, wrote a response, of sorts, to the voters “…who feel alienated America’s governmental, social, and economic institutions [that] include science and higher education”. His claim is simple: Trump’s message of “…xenophobia, sexism, racism, transphobia, nationalism, and disregard for truth…” resonates with them. It’s the people’s fault: the people voted wrong. Well… to borrow his own words, “Make no mistake.” Holden Thorp does not speak for me.

You can find Thorp’s op-ed here.

It’s not that the author is a Trump fan, for, like me, he despises the man:

. . . Harris’ legacy is tainted by her support for the diversity and social justice activism responsible for the damage that has been done to Western academic and social institutions in its name. She lost to Donald Trump, a conman and a charlatan of historic proportions who went as far as inciting a coup to remain in power the last time he was president, and a persona as anti-science as one could imagine after Lysenko’s death, second possibly only to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. In many ways, 2024 was the year the Democrats handed the election to Trump

About the Pew surveys, with links in the article:

What these surveys and studies show is that people continue to trust scientists more, than they do politicians. It follows from this that the more scientists act like politicians, the less the public will trust us. Yet, in recent decades, scientific institutions and individual scientists have been acting more and more like the politicians by engaging in activism and social engineering.

I do not know who the author is, but he/she rejects being spoken for by Thorp simply because of Thorp’s dismissal of Americans as a “basket of deplorables” and declaring that his journal adheres to “progressive” politics:

Surveys and studies on public trust in science suggest that what people question is not the science, but “… the extent to which scientists’ values align with their own”, and how this alignment—or misalignment—affects the integrity of their findings. What are the values that people expect scientists to align with? According to Holden Thorps of academia, those values are xenophobia, sexism, racism, transphobia, nationalism, and disregard for truth. This disparaging message is nothing new. In fact, this has been the message communicated by individual academics and academic institutions to people on the outside for at least two decades, the message that can be found everywhere, from land acknowledgements to course syllabi. Academics are telling people that they stole “indigenous land”, that they are oppressors, colonizers, racists, misogynists, -phobes of all sorts, fascists, racists, nationalists. It is furthermore alleged that it is up to the enlightened academic elite to show the unwashed masses the path to salvation that lies through admitting one’s sins, accepting one’s guilt, and correcting the way one thinks, speaks, and behaves. Notably, the sins in question, as well as the alleged enlightenment of the accusers, are both imaginary.

It is not only that Holden Thorp and those like him have for decades been dripping disdain for the very people who pay their salaries, travel allowances, and research costs from their taxes; It is not only that his brand of academics have for decades been demonizing those regular voters he is talking about—bus drivers and fast food employees, teachers and policemen, servicemen and businessmen—as some sort of Nazi-adjacent monsters, accusing them of all sorts of imaginary sins. It is that those same people, while being demonized for their desire to live and enjoy normal, safe, and productive lives under the conditions afforded by the freedom and safety of Western civilization, the civilization built on the blood of the brave defenders of its values—those same people have at the same time witnessed the full-throttled support academia threw behind the black lives matter riots and Islamic terrorists—those real, living and breathing Nazis who behead children, rape women, burn entire families alive, and shoot their pet dogs; Hamas supporters were allowed to roam free on academic campuses, attacking people, vandalizing buildings, leaving a mess for the janitors to clean up, and, in general, destroying things built over generations by the very people the academics demonize.

In other words, those voters Holden Thorp is so disdainful of were witnessing the hypocrisy of the academic community, the members of which compromised the truth for political gain—exactly the sin Thorp is accusing his political rivals (Trump supporters) of. Against this backdrop, the surprising part is that trust in science and scientists remains as high as it does.

The article gives several more examples of the institutional capture and lack of institutional neutrality of science editors and journals, including the sad tale of Laura Helmuth and Scientific American (I note that the new, Helmuth-less journal seems to have retracted its wokeness). But the article ends on a note of hope. I have added the links from the original article.

As I was finishing this piece, there were several positive developments. As I have already mentioned, Laura Helmuth resigned from Scientific American, offering the journal a chance to reclaim its former scientific rigor. Marcia McNutt, the president of the United States National Academy of Sciences, wrote a powerful editorial Science is neither red nor blue, published in Science. The University of Michigan, formerly one of the hubs of diversity, equity, and inclusion ideology squandering some US$15M/year, resolved to no longer solicit diversity statements in faculty hiring, promotion, and tenure. A UofM physics professor offered a relatively mild testimony of the damage done by the DEI initiatives and the black lives matter grift, a testimony that was unthinkable only a few years ago. More generally, in the wake of October 7th, multiple institutions adopted political neutrality. These are important first steps in reversing and repairing the damage that was done to scholarship, research, innovation, and teaching over the decades of woke/DEI insanity.

As they say, “One can hope. . . .”

The next link gives FIRE’s list of schools that have adopted institutional neutrality à la the University of Chicago’s Kalven Principles. There are now 29 of them: a good start, but still a drop in the bucket given that there are about 6,000 colleges in the U.S.

A while back Luana debated Holden Thorp about the ideological takeover of science. Here’s a video of that debate, and I don’t think Thorp came out on top

More on the KerFFRFle about “what is a woman?”

January 2, 2025 • 11:45 am

The fallout from the FFRF fracas, which I call the “KerFFRFle”, continues. There is plenty of negative commentary about me, some of it indeed hateful (one jerk commented that he was glad, when Steve, Richard, and I resigned from the FFRF’s honorary board, that the “trash took itself out”), but you can find that for yourself. Indeed, much of this pushback is characterized by name-calling and “old white men” tropes rather than scientific or even philosophical argumentation, and doesn’t deserve response. At any rate, this post gives examples of reputable people (and not all of them are “old white men” who feel that I (as well as Steve and Richard) made useful points that deserve to be debated.  However, Turley’s piece below links to one harsh critique of what I wrote.

First, a piece from Ronald Lindsay, the editor of the Center for Inquiry‘s (CFI’s) magazine Free Inquiry and former president of the CFI.  The CFI remains one organization that studiously avoids ideological capture, and I’d recommend that readers consider joining it. I’m one of the CFI’s Committee for Skeptical Inquiry’s Fellows, and I highly doubt that I’ll ever have to resign! They’ve also reprinted my “Biology is Not Bigotry” piece, ensuring that it won’t disappear from the Internet. Besides being archived in two places, about four other sites have kindly reprinted it.

Click on all headlines to go to the pieces. I’ll give brief excerpt of each piece:

An excerpt:

FFRF’s removal of Coyne’s post was unwarranted and Barker and Gaylor’s curious apology shows they are no longer proponents of freethought, however much their organization may advocate for church-state separation. Being a freethinker implies a willingness to consider arguments that challenge one’s beliefs and to conform one’s beliefs to the evidence. Barker and Gaylor’s abrupt removal of Coyne’s post shows that for them the claim that sex is non-binary can never be challenged; it must be accepted as dogma.

And exactly which “values and principles” did Coyne’s essay violate? Coyne made no disparaging remarks about transgender individuals. To the contrary, as indicated, Coyne was at pains to point out he supports civil rights for transgender individuals, and presumably Barker and Gaylor do not take issue with that stance. No, what Barker and Gaylor apparently vehemently oppose—to the extent of censoring an essay and issuing an apology—is a science-based argument that sex is binary and cannot be changed at will. Furthermore, the harm they identify as caused by the essay is the “distress” felt by those reading it.

I hope I would not have to remind readers that one of the arguments used for centuries by religious institutions and advocates to justify censoring of religious criticism, including science-based criticism, is that it causes “distress” and violates cherished values. To have Barker and Gaylor echo religious censors goes beyond ironic; it is a travesty.

Next up, Robert Goodday.  He actually wrote four related posts on the issue on his “Carolina Curmudgeon” Substack site, and added this note:

My own thoughts about the FFRF events, in 4 easy-to-read substack postings 🙂

Click the titles to go to his posts.

An excerpt:

Since then, events have occurred that have resulted in several of the leading members of the FFRF advisory board resigning from the organization. The problems really started when Jerry Coyne, an honorary FFRF board member, wrote an article critiquing Grant’s essay. Coyne had been told by the co-presidents of FFRF that his critique would be published online by the organization — and it was — but only for a very brief period of time. In a rather shameful act of disrespect and betrayal of their principles, after FFRF received one or more complaints about Coyne’s essay (complaints that apparently claimed that Coyne’s critique was causing unnamed trans individuals distress), FFRF removed Coyne’s article – without even have the courtesy to inform Coyne of what they were planning to do and without even replying when Coyne wrote to ask why his article had been taken down.

In my next posting, I’ll focus on an email interaction I had two years ago with Annie Laurie Gaylor, one of the two co-presidents (along with Dan Barker) of FFRF. My third posting will critically analyze the original “What is a woman” essay. The fourth will comment on FFRF’s statement that the co-presidents posted to explain and justify removing Coyne’s article.

An excerpt:

Two years ago, Kat Grant, the individual who wrote the “What is a woman?” essay for FFRF, participated in a podcast interview that focused on a discussion of trans ideology. At that time, in response to what was said during that podcast, I wrote to the presidents of FFRF raising questions regarding some of the conclusions that I heard being espoused on that podcast. I was pleased to receive a reply that same day from Annie Laurie Gaylor, one of the organization’s co-presidents. However — I was not impressed with the shallowness of the content of her reply, and so, not being the kind of person who shies away from continuing that kind of discussion, I wrote back to Gaylor to highlight questions I had raised that she had not addressed. Not surprisingly, I never received any acknowledgement of that second email. A copy of these emails is posted below.

You can read the emails at the link.

An excerpt:

Overall, I would give Kat Grant’s essay a “D” grade (but only because I’m feeling in a generous mood – having just finished consuming a large Starbucks coffee, so my mood is under the influence of a considerable amount of caffeine – and the essay does not contain spelling errors). The reason I could not bring myself to give the essay a higher grade is because it: (i) includes factual errors, (ii) involves sloppy reasoning, (iii) repeatedly engages in begging the question, (iv) includes discussions that are simply not relevant to the issue that is purportedly the focus of the essay, and (v) never actually does answer the question posed by the essay’s title.

. . . I’m actually going to start my critique by discussing the final sentence of the essay – which is the only sentence that involves any effort on Grant’s part to provide an answer to the question posed by the essay’s title. Of course, what I had anticipated would be Grant’s definition of a “woman” is the definition that lies at the heart of trans ideology; according to that view, a woman is anyone who feels or even just says that they are a woman (see, for example, psychiatrist Jack Turban’s discussion of male and female gender identity in a recent article in the NY Times). This is, in fact, the only definition of “woman” that COULD be compatible with trans ideology — because it is the only definition compatible with the oft-chanted trans ideology refrain that “trans women are women”.

The problem with this definition, though, is patently obvious; it involves perfectly circular reason, such that it provides exactly zero clarity about what it is that trans women who claim to be women are claiming that they are. Indeed, the trans ideology definition of “woman” may represent the platonic ideal of what circular reasoning entails.

An excerpt. The part in italics is from the FFRF’s statement on why they removed my piece:

FFRF and its new legislative arm, FFRF Action Fund, will do everything we can to defeat President-elect Trump’s draconian vow that the official policy of the U.S. government will be that “there are only two genders, male and female.” We are already gearing up to fight his promise to end the “transgender lunacy” on day one of his administration.

Wow. I had never realized that when I donated to FFRF, I was indirectly donating to another, much larger, organization: Human Rights Campaign. It’s not that I’m opposed to much of what HRC supports (although I certainly don’t support ALL of their efforts), but I had always thought that the mission of FFRF was different from that of HRC. I always thought that FFRF was an organization focused like a laser on the separation of church and state. If I wanted to donate to an organization (HRC) focused specifically on lesbian and gay and trans activism, I would have. If FFRF has so much money that it doesn’t need that $50K for its own specific efforts that focus directly on ITS specific mission – then I guess I’m a fool for having donated money to them so consistently over the years. My bad.

The larger point – and what I think is the most important issue that has been raised by this whole rather sordid set of events involving the FFRF – is that I think the FFRF should STAY IN ITS LANE. We need an organization to focus specifically on separation of church and state issues, and FFRF should have let other organizations focus on other issues – however worthwhile the efforts of those other organizations may be. When I first wrote to FFRF 20 months ago, this was exactly the issue I tried to raise with FFRF co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor. Sadly, it is apparent that FFRF is now becoming just another progressive ideology organization — and like other far left progressive organizations, FFRF is now worshipping at the altar of trans ideology.

This is from Sarah Haider’s Substack. It makes me a bit sad because although I’ve always admired Sarah’s writing and work (she was a cofounder of Ex-Muslims of North America), she is, while remaining a nonbeliever, leaving the atheist “community:

An excerpt:

This past week, a drama has been unfolding at the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF). It seems that they published a piece by an intern (Kat Grant) on the definition of “woman” in their newsletter, Freethought Today. You can read the piece here if you like, but I’ll spoil it for you: Grant thinks a woman is whoever claims to be one. Thankfully, they invited the distinguished biologist Jerry Coyne for a rebuttal defending the biological definition, but then hastily took it down, calling it “an error of judgement” that does not reflect their values. Understandably outraged, Coyne resigned from the FFRF honorary board, as did Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker.

While they are saying goodbye to FFRF, I think it might be a good time for me to say goodbye to organized atheism altogether.

This is not, to be clear, a goodbye to atheism. Despite the reports of famous re-conversions of former-atheists like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, I cannot find God in my heart (or even a “God-shaped hole”). The switch has flipped; the myth has fully unraveled and been replaced by an understanding of the world that sits firm in my mind (far more comfortably than faith ever did). On this point, I don’t believe there is a way back for me. (I nearly wish I could manage some wiggle room here, if only so that I can understand what it is that my newly-religious friends are feeling and accepting. But no such luck.)

Still, I have become friendlier to the idea of religion as a social good as of the past few years, and now (more controversially), I even feel that there are intellectual benefits to faith too–or at least, to some forms of it. Much of this is informed by my experiences working within the atheist activism space, and by my resulting intellectual drift.

I would urge you to support Sarah’s work by considering a donation here.

Finally, from Jonathan Turley‘s website (he’s a legal scholar, writer, and professor at George Washington University Law School):

An excerpt:

The resignations from the FFRF raised some of the same points made by “old guard” figures who have left the ACLU over its own abandonment of neutrality and  effort “to adhere to ‘progressive’ political or ideological positions.”

There is a worthy debate over transgender issues in science. Dr. Coyne was attempting to contribute to that debate. Yet, many prefer to work to silence others rather than respond to opposing views. Indeed, I was hoping that Kat Grant would come out to support Dr. Coyne in his effort to offer such a critique of her work.

Liberals have come out in support of the censorship, dismissing Coyne as someone who simply “rehashes the right-wing talking point” and “promot[es] this kind of hate.” (This commentator noted that his views were published on BlueSky, a site that has become a safe space for liberals who do not want to be triggered by opposing views).

The intolerance for opposing views is so great that the FFRF is willing to engage in atheist orthodoxy, which not long ago would have been viewed as a contradiction in terms. It is a disgraceful position for a group that once defended those banned or canceled for their views. It is a moment that reminds one of what Robert Oppenheimer said about physicists, but it is particularly poignant for these atheists who have joined a mob to silence: they “have known sin; and this is a knowledge which they cannot lose.”

Natasha Hausdorff gives better than she gets at the Oxford Union debates

December 6, 2024 • 11:30 am

The most recent Oxford Union debate was both odious and raucous, and you can read about it in a piece by Niall Ferguson at The Free Press (archived here).  An excerpt:

Something is rotten in the state of Britain. It was epitomized by a recent [Nov. 28] event at the Oxford Union, the 201-year-old debating society that is such a distinctive and admirable part of Oxford life. It was at the Union that, 40 years ago, I spoke as freely (and indeed as irresponsibly) as I ever have, discovering in the process that I was not cut out for politics. It was there that I saw great debaters of the past, present, and future.

But I never saw anything like the events of November 28.

The motion for debate was in itself a provocation: “This House Believes Israel Is an Apartheid State Responsible for Genocide.” But what was truly shocking was the conduct of the president of the Union, an Egyptian student named Ebrahim Osman-Mowafy, who appears to have abused his position by openly siding with those proposing the motion and treating the opposing speakers with contempt.

According to the broadcaster, Jonathan Sacerdoti, who was arguing for Israel’s side, Osman-Mowafy canceled the traditional pre-debate group photographs, but posed alone for private photos with the anti-Israel team. During the debate, the pro-Israel speakers were repeatedly heckled by the crowd. At one point, a young woman stood up and screamed at Sacerdoti: “Liar! Fuck you, the genocidal motherfucker!”

Mosab Hassan Yousef, the son of a senior Hamas leader who defected to Israel, who was arguing alongside Sacerdoti, was met with jeering derision and cries of “traitor” and “prostitute” (in Arabic). Yousef asked the audience to indicate by a show of hands how many of them would have reported prior knowledge of the October 7, 2023, atrocities to Israel. Not even a quarter of the crowd raised their hands.

For the other side, Miko Peled, an Israeli general’s son turned radical anti-Zionist, described the murders, rapes, and kidnappings of October 7 as “acts of heroism.” The Palestinian poet Mohammed El-Kurd, who has equated Zionism with genocide, began his speech by announcing that there was “no room for debate” and ended it by walking out of the chamber. The motion passed by 278 in favor to 59 against.

I have been looking for videos of this debate online, but the bad news is that so far only one short segment has appeared. The good news, though, is that it features the eloquent, brave, and whip-smart Natasha Hausdorff, lawyer and legal director of the UK Lawyers for Israel.

Reader “Bat” sent me the link, but also his take on the video below, which you should watch. His words:

The future Mrs PCC(E) really gave them what for at that shameful Oxford Union debate last week. Here is a video of her full 21-minute speech during which she shows no intimidation and, with a light wave of the hand in several instances, ignores the catcalls of the heavily anti-Israel audience. Though originally scheduled for 15 minutes, she makes it explicitly clear that she will take an extra five minutes as the anti-Israel speakers did when also ignoring the house rules earlier. She ignores the gavel of the Union debate judge several times and speaks for a full 21 minutes. A lovely performance in very hostile territory. 

It is clear that Hausdorff is passionate and terribly angry at the views of her opponents, but her anger is manifested only in her manner of speech, for she keeps decorum throughout. Pity that the same can’t be said of the audience or the judge.

I will add one personal comment, directed at those who on these shores also accuse Israel of “genocide”.  If Israel wanted to kill off all the Gazans—and there are two million of them—it would already be a fait accompli. All it would take would be a series of massive airstrikes and heavy-handed urban warfare directly targeting civilians.  But that is not happening

Instead, Israel has taken care, as far as possible, to avoid killing noncombatants. It warns civilians of airstrikes in advance, sets up humanitarian zones, sends in thousands of tons of food, and, at risk to IDF soldiers’ own lives, tries to target only members of Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.  Is this the act of people bent on genocide?

Since the terrorists use civilians as human shields (Hamas boasts of this!), a large toll of noncombatants is the sad but inevitable result of the terrorists’ cynical tactics.  What about those tunnels under hospitals and schools? Nobody can deny this—except for those who want the state of Israel gone, and its Jews with it.

Those miscreants who accuse Israel of genocide also, and inevitably, fail to mention the explicit genocide of Palestinian terrorists. The first Hamas charter, the teaching of martyrdom and Jew-killing to Palestinian children, and, of course, the endless terrorism enacted against Israeli citizens since 1948—all of these speak of the terrorists’ desire to make the Middle East Judenrein.

No, the real genocide is never mentioned, for it is seen in both the words and actions of Palestinian terrorists and their sympathizers. Instead, the accusation of genocide gets turned against its very victims: the Israelis and now the Jews of other countries (the latest incident was in Australia). I have nothing but contempt for those who ignore these facts.

But I fear I am just repeating what Ms. Hausdorff said above. Listen for yourself.