It is an age-old debate in philosophy. Is mankind naturally good or naturally bad? Philosophers and theologians have made their respective cases throughout history. Some traditions such as ancient Chinese philosophies in Confucianism and Taoism assert that man is naturally good. They use the example of a child drowning in a well and how man is naturally inclined to help that child. Other traditions, like the Judeo-Christian philosophy, argues that mankind is naturally bad. If given the opportunity to be greedy, malicious, or spiteful most people will give in and do what is bad before doing what is right. It is not an easy debate to resolve because there are so many cases throughout history that favor both. There are cases of tremendous altruism, the most famous being the soldier who dives on a grenade to save the lives of his squad. There are also cases of tremendous atrocity, most notably the bloody reign of tyrants like Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Caligula. It's hard to assert which state is dominant because everybody is different and there are personality and environmental factors to consider. But the question remains. Is man in his basic essance inclined to altruism or selfishness?

Philosophy can debate this, but science is shedding new light on the subject. Since the study of evolution began, it has been popular to assert that it is a selfish process highlighted by the mantra of 'survival of the fittest.' Creationists and religious zealots have condemned this method for decades. However, that mantra may be wrong and a new concept known as 'survival of the kindest' is taking hold.

Charles Darwin himself once stated that sympathy is mankind's strongest instinct. In an evolutionary context, it makes sense for man to be both selfish and altruistic. To be selfish is to ensure one's own survival, which is paramount to any species. To be altruistic is to foster cooperation, communication, and group cohesion that is equally important in an constantly changing environment. Mankind is not like other species in that an individual is strong enough to evade any predator and capture any prey, but as a group mankind functions in a way that favors the survival of not just the individual but the entire species.

A good way to picture this is to go back to the hunger/gatherer days. If an individual was selfish and malicious, he would not get much help from his peers. He would have to fend for himself, finding his own food and fight to procure his own mate. If at any point he should face danger or be unable to secure food for himself, there would be no one to help him and he would not survive. If this individual worked in a team, sacrificing selfishness in favor of group harmony he is better able to get the resources he needs to survive. If he faces those same dangers, there are mechanisms to help him. This makes getting food and securing mates much easier and these traits would be favored by natural selection. So in the grand scheme of evolution, mankind has been bred to be altruistic.

Contrast this with religious subversions that assert mankind needs a deity of some kind to watch over him and threaten him with divine retribution in order for them to be good. Some even argue there must be a threat of damnation, a hell or an underworld where the spirit suffers for their transgressions, and if there wasn't then man would naturally indulge in greed, violence, and lust. Whether it's through a deity or a threat of suffering after death, one of religion's most powerful recruiting tools is creating a supernatural judge to keep people in line. But is that judge really necessary? Aren't mankind's collective instincts enough? There appears to be evidence that no deity is needed.

Below is an article highlighting a study that shows this and sheds new light on human altruism without any need for gods and spirits of any kind.

ScienceDaily: New Studies Into Human Altruism

ScienceDaily (Dec. 9, 2009) — Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, are challenging long-held beliefs that human beings are wired to be selfish. In a wide range of studies, social scientists are amassing a growing body of evidence to show we are evolving to become more compassionate and collaborative in our quest to survive and thrive.

In contrast to "every man for himself" interpretations of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, Dacher Keltner, a UC Berkeley psychologist and author of "Born to be Good: The Science of a Meaningful Life," and his fellow social scientists are building the case that humans are successful as a species precisely because of our nurturing, altruistic and compassionate traits.

They call it "survival of the kindest."

"Because of our very vulnerable offspring, the fundamental task for human survival and gene replication is to take care of others," said Keltner, co-director of UC Berkeley's Greater Good Science Center. "Human beings have survived as a species because we have evolved the capacities to care for those in need and to cooperate. As Darwin long ago surmised, sympathy is our strongest instinct."

Empathy in our genes

Keltner's team is looking into how the human capacity to care and cooperate is wired into particular regions of the brain and nervous system. One recent study found compelling evidence that many of us are genetically predisposed to be empathetic.

The study, led by UC Berkeley graduate student Laura Saslow and Sarina Rodrigues of Oregon State University, found that people with a particular variation of the oxytocin gene receptor are more adept at reading the emotional state of others, and get less stressed out under tense circumstances.

Informally known as the "cuddle hormone," oxytocin is secreted into the bloodstream and the brain, where it promotes social interaction, nurturing and romantic love, among other functions.

"The tendency to be more empathetic may be influenced by a single gene," Rodrigues said.

The more you give, the more respect you get

While studies show that bonding and making social connections can make for a healthier, more meaningful life, the larger question some UC Berkeley researchers are asking is, "How do these traits ensure our survival and raise our status among our peers?"

One answer, according to UC Berkeley social psychologist and sociologist Robb Willer is that the more generous we are, the more respect and influence we wield. In one recent study, Willer and his team gave participants each a modest amount of cash and directed them to play games of varying complexity that would benefit the "public good." The results, published in the journal American Sociological Review, showed that participants who acted more generously received more gifts, respect and cooperation from their peers and wielded more influence over them.

"The findings suggest that anyone who acts only in his or her narrow self-interest will be shunned, disrespected, even hated," Willer said. "But those who behave generously with others are held in high esteem by their peers and thus rise in status."

"Given how much is to be gained through generosity, social scientists increasingly wonder less why people are ever generous and more why they are ever selfish," he added.

Cultivating the greater good

Such results validate the findings of such "positive psychology" pioneers as Martin Seligman, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania whose research in the early 1990s shifted away from mental illness and dysfunction, delving instead into the mysteries of human resilience and optimism.

While much of the positive psychology being studied around the nation is focused on personal fulfillment and happiness, UC Berkeley researchers have narrowed their investigation into how it contributes to the greater societal good.

One outcome is the campus's Greater Good Science Center, a West Coast magnet for research on gratitude, compassion, altruism, awe and positive parenting, whose benefactors include the Metanexus Institute, Tom and Ruth Ann Hornaday and the Quality of Life Foundation.

Christine Carter, executive director of the Greater Good Science Center, is creator of the "Science for Raising Happy Kids" Web site, whose goal, among other things, is to assist in and promote the rearing of "emotionally literate" children. Carter translates rigorous research into practical parenting advice. She says many parents are turning away from materialistic or competitive activities, and rethinking what will bring their families true happiness and well-being.

"I've found that parents who start consciously cultivating gratitude and generosity in their children quickly see how much happier and more resilient their children become," said Carter, author of "Raising Happiness: 10 Simple Steps for More Joyful Kids and Happier Parents" which will be in bookstores in February 2010. "What is often surprising to parents is how much happier they themselves also become."

The sympathetic touch

As for college-goers, UC Berkeley psychologist Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton has found that cross-racial and cross-ethnic friendships can improve the social and academic experience on campuses. In one set of findings, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, he found that the cortisol levels of both white and Latino students dropped as they got to know each over a series of one-on-one get-togethers. Cortisol is a hormone triggered by stress and anxiety.

Meanwhile, in their investigation of the neurobiological roots of positive emotions, Keltner and his team are zeroing in on the aforementioned oxytocin as well as the vagus nerve, a uniquely mammalian system that connects to all the body's organs and regulates heart rate and breathing.

Both the vagus nerve and oxytocin play a role in communicating and calming. In one UC Berkeley study, for example, two people separated by a barrier took turns trying to communicate emotions to one another by touching one other through a hole in the barrier. For the most part, participants were able to successfully communicate sympathy, love and gratitude and even assuage major anxiety.

Researchers were able to see from activity in the threat response region of the brain that many of the female participants grew anxious as they waited to be touched. However, as soon as they felt a sympathetic touch, the vagus nerve was activated and oxytocin was released, calming them immediately.

"Sympathy is indeed wired into our brains and bodies; and it spreads from one person to another through touch," Keltner said.

The same goes for smaller mammals. UC Berkeley psychologist Darlene Francis and Michael Meaney, a professor of biological psychiatry and neurology at McGill University, found that rat pups whose mothers licked, groomed and generally nurtured them showed reduced levels of stress hormones, including cortisol, and had generally more robust immune systems.

Overall, these and other findings at UC Berkeley challenge the assumption that nice guys finish last, and instead support the hypothesis that humans, if adequately nurtured and supported, tend to err on the side of compassion.

"This new science of altruism and the physiological underpinnings of compassion is finally catching up with Darwin's observations nearly 130 years ago, that sympathy is our strongest instinct," Keltner said.

When it comes to emotional issues, few are as volatile as abortion. It has been debated for decades, making Roe vs. Wade remains one of the most well-known and controversial court cases in history. People have gone to extraordinary lengths (even murder and terrorism) to push their position. Even in a free society it is not easily resolved because this is an issue that deals with human life and what could be more emotional than determining the fate of a life or a potential human life?

Since abortion is so emotional, it's a given that a large part of the debate is not based in reason. It is almost impossible to separate one's personal feelings about this issue from their justification for being either pro-choice or pro-life. This has become especially apparent as abortion has been thrust into the spotlight again along with the health care debate. Many media outlets, including Townhall.com, have spent a great deal of time discussing the issue. The debate is nearly always emotional, but there are a few concrete issues that have a reasonable position.

One point the pro-life crowd makes that is perfectly valid is the use of public money to fund abortions. This is a legitimate concern regardless of the emotional position they may have against abortion. This point in many ways highlights the shortcomings of the current health care debate. When the public knows their money is going somewhere they have personal objections to, it's only natural that they take it as an affront to their conscious and their liberty. The taxes people pay and the money the government uses is meant to go only to what the constitution specifies. That is what a constitutional republic is all about. There's nothing in the constitution that says public money should go to paying for someone else's health care let alone someone else's abortion. Nobody should be expected to fund something that isn't a direct support of their basic rights and the pro-life movement is right to protest this. Unfortunately, they do not stop at the strictly reasonable aspects of the debate.

Being so emotional, the pro-life crowd has to take it a step further. They have to paint abortion not just as a health issue, but a moral issue. They equate abortion to killing a baby, something everybody can agree is wrong. The problem with this position is that it's an extreme. For one, in a strictly rational sense it's not proper to call abortion murder. This is because killing or murder requires personhood and the beginnings of personhood are debatable. The pro-life crowd insists that life begins at conception. As soon as the sperm meets the egg, it is a human being. But this definition has a problem. If a fertilized egg is a person, then why are they not counted on the census? Why aren't miscarriages treated as murder or death? Not every fertilized egg gets implanted either. How is one to treat such situations when the context has so many inconsistencies? As a parallel, nobody judges death at the death of the last cell so why would one use such a standard for life?

Pro-lifers will go onto debate that a fertilized egg is a 'potential life' and it must be saved. It sounds like a noble intention, but it's igorning that in the constituion it does not specify that 'potential life' is protected the same way life is protected. So legally, there is no justification for calling abortion murder. It also ignores that this standard utterly ignores the rights of the woman carrying this child. In this instance the pro-choice crowd is correct in pointing out that the abortion issue needs to reside with the women it affects, namely those who have to make this decision. It is not proper nor is it reasonable for the state or other interest groups to impose their choice on someone else. If someone is against abortion, they're more than free to try and persuade people to not have one. However, when they want to start using force to make that choice for the person then they no longer have the moral high ground.

The abortion debate more than any other debate needs reason and not emotional pleas. The age-old tactic of trying to aquait an issue with something many find deplorable is utilized all too often. Recently, Ken Conner tried to equate abortion with the slavery issue back in the 1800s.

"A century and a half later, it is no longer skin color that provokes controversy over the question of liberty, but other criteria such as size, age, and location (inside or outside the womb).  Because we have decided that they are not "persons," the continued existence of the unborn has become entirely contingent upon the whims of the mother.  The pro-abortion camp insists that an unborn child only counts when it is wanted.  Rights have nothing to do with the matter - it's really all about wants."

It sounds so logical to some people and tugs at the heart strings of impressionable readers, yet it has a major fallacy. Abortion is NOT slavery. These are truly two different issues. It is not reasonable to compare a fetus to a fully living adult human being who is being enslaved against their will. A fetus at an early stage has no thoughts or internal organs. It is not capable of working, breathing, or living on its own. To equate the abortion issue with the slavery issue is to pervert both. Conner makes a big mistake in stating that it all comes down to the selfish wants of the mother. It makes light of the fact that the woman is the one making the decision and it's not always out of pure selfishness they seek an abortion. In addition, it's another insult to say rights are tied to wants. They're not. Rights and liberty are and always have been a product of law and law is a human construction. When it comes to granting rights it not always best to err on the side of life as the pro-life crowd so eagerly attempts. The law works best when it errs on the side of reason and there is nothing reasonable about equating the unborn to slaves and the woman facing this issue as being selfish.

Ken Conner: Without Life, No Rights

The abortion issue has many other aspects. Many of the pro-life crowd also happen to be against any kind of sex outside of marriage, contraception even within marriage, and homosexual rights even though they're the least likely to ever have an abortion. They often claim that their bible believing Christians as well, but this is even more ironic because the Judeo-Christian god is one of the last characters that would champion the pro-life movement. This is the same being that slaughtered the first born in Exodus and wiped out the entire planet in Genesis. God of all beings would not be pro-life. It all seems to have less to do with abortion and more to do with imposing a ridged moral standard on society. The idea of abortion stands as an affront because it seems to mean to them that woman can be sexually promiscuous without having pregnancy to make them think twice and that flies in the face of their morality.

This in many ways is the biggest problem with the pro-life movement. They are so closely tied to this prudish, uptight model for society that they have no room to debate and reason the actual logistics of abortion. This hurts their cause and their credibility, which is a shame becaues abortion truly is an important issue. That is why it must be approached with reason and not clouded with emotional distress.

It is popular for Americans and people in general to cherish their rights. It's only natural. Rights are an important part of every society, free or otherwise. The abundance or lack of rights lie at the very core of any community large and small. However, at times the source of these rights becomes exaggerated. A peoples' rights take on an almost divine aura. Many will claim human rights are a gift from a god or some divine force. It's a comforting notion, but ignores reality. Rights are a complicated concept because their so abstract, but without a firm understanding of what rights are and where they come from the people are ill-equipped to defend them.

First and foremost, rights don't come from god or anything supernatural. They never have. They are and always have been an abstract concept of society. Their main source is law. Without law there is no order and without order there are no rights. Now law is a far more complicated concept than rights. There are so many different legal traditions across history, cultures, and countries that to explain one and apply it to all would be utterly meaningless in any argument as to the source of rights. But rights as most people understand them do have a basis in certain aspects of law, namely those meant to protect individuals and communities and ensure order.

Now it's impossible to talk about the source of rights without the source of the law. Throughout history law has come from many places. Ancient Egypt and the vast empires of history had rulers who dictated what the law was. Kingdoms and city-states had oligarchs, councils, or community proceedings that brought forth the law. It wasn't always logical. If a ruler was mentally ill, then the laws would not be very reasonable. Men like Calligula of Ancient Rome, Ivan the Terrible or Medieval Russia, and Pol Pot of Cambodia all had clear symptoms of serious mental illness. Yet being the rulers of their country, they were the law and that law was what the people had to live under. Needless to say, the people didn't have very clear or logical rights.

The problem with law and rights as always been that people were constantly debating the laws and bending them to their whims. That's where some of these irrational traditions come from. That's where barbaric systems like the Spanish Inquisition, Stalin's secret police, or Adolph Hitlers SS come from. It is only when those educated in reason and humanities come together that the source of natural rights take shape. The logic follows that all human beings, being of the same flesh and blood as anyone else, have an intrinsic worth. It is a concept that spans all religions and cultures to some extent, even those with ridged hierarchies. Thus, the law must protect each individual worth from the whims of other individuals and the only way to do this is through law.

This presents another problem. Law is not always forged in peace. As such, rights are not always forged from peace. When dealing with oligarchs and tyranical rulers, it often takes force to obtain the legal framework for these rights. That's why there had to be an American Revolution. That's why there had to be uprisings amongst populations in Europe and other Western countries to reshape the power structure in favor of defending rights rather than debating them. It also helps when the population becomes more educated and aware of their state. It was difficult in pre-modern times because there were so few connections between communities. Now with advanced understandings in law and reason, rights can take shape.

This is where limited government comes in. Starting with concepts like the Magna Carta, the state's role in rights shifted from being a giver of rights to a defender of rights. This was the reasoning behind the republic, which has it's roots back in Ancient Greece and Rome. Here, it is a fixed body of laws that limit the power of the state to maintain it's role as a protector of rights. This was what the founding fathers followed as they understood that rights could only be protected if the government was limited by law. So when people start assuming their rights are coming from somewhere else besides law, they ignore when the law is usurped and thus their rights are usurped.

The belief that rights come from some holy, god-given source has distracted people from the real problem with rights. They need to have a basis in law and at times there needs to be force behind it. Here's the situation. Government has grown a great deal in the last 100 years, expanding it's power and intruding on the rights of the citizens, sometimes overtly and sometimes covertly and sometimes completely unintentionally. Yet these violations aren't confronted because the people don't understand the government's role. They think their rights were with them when they were born or they come from some invisible deity. So if that's the source, why bother with the law?

It is dangerous and flawed thinking. It's the kind of thinking that causes complacency in a population. It gives people an excuse to sit around while their government continues to ignore the law and strip at their rights. It is only when the people demand through force that the government respect the law and the rights they protect that the free society prevails. At the moment, however, not enough force is being applied and too many people are not willing to step up.

For more reading on the source of rights, please consult the following academic paper by Brian Tierney:

The Idea of Natural Rights

The theory of evolution and science itself has been attacked by the religion since the days of the Spanish Inquisition. Throughout history religious zealots have harassed, hindered, or outright suppressed the likes of Galieo, Copernicus, and Charles Darwin. It's never on the merits of the work itself. It always has to do with certain groups just not liking that the stories in their favorite religous texts being disproved in the real world. It's not about their claims being valid. It's about vindicating thier own beliefs and rallying around something that seems so counter-intuitive to their illogical thinking.

Sadly enough, the assault on science continues to this day. The church has long since lost it's power, but the attack can come from a myriad of sources. Some even come from former teenage idols. Kirk Cameron, a former child star from the sitcom Growing Pains, has taken up the mantle of overzealous religious dogma. In a recent interview with People, he discussed plans to distribute 'edited' versions of Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" on November 19th across college campuses.

Kirk Cameron Defends attacks on Darwin

By edited, of course, that means mixed with irrational creationist dogma that has long since been disproved and has no merit in modern science. Yet he makes no apologies. He describes the edited text as a "balanced view of Creationism with information from scientists who actually believe God created the universe." But this is a complete oxymoron.

When it comes to the debate between creationism and science, there is no balance. Science uses reason, evidence, and logic. Creationism uses belief, superstition, and dogma. To people like Cameron, a firm belief in his particular supernatural deity is all it takes to disprove a theory that is accepted by over 95 percent of scientists and has mountains of evidence across varying fields like palentology, zoology, biology, chemistry, psychology, sociology, chemistry, comparative morphology, and taxonomy. Creationism isn't supported by anything other than dogmatic believers who know next to nothing about science, what it is or how it works. They don't even understand what the word 'theory' means. To people like Cameron, it means a guess. But if he just opened any legitimate dictionary, he would see that's completely wrong. Yet this doesn't bother him. He and his partner in crime, Ray Comfort, continue to state and restate the same false statements again and again, never changing their message or the merits that support it. They either aren't that concerned with the truth or simply do not care.

What Kirk is doing has nothing to do with science. It has everything to do with promoting his agenda and that of his creationist buddies. By disturbing these perverse texts across college campuses, he hopes to gain followers. In his mind he's saving their souls, but in reality he's dooming them to ignorance. Creationism is one of the most perverted flaws of religion. It makes people mix belief with truth, causing them to abandon any semblance of reason or questioning in any objective manner. It's all about propagating the faith. Anything that gets the believer to think in any way that deviates from accepted dogma must somehow be bad, even if it is backed up by evidence and logic. This isn't just immoral. It's downright inhumane, attempting to rob people of their natrual capacity for reason and knowledge.

On November 21st, 2009, it will mark the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's landmark "On the Origins of Species." It is sad that after all this time, there are still people like Kirk Cameron who spew their Bronze Age worldviews and call it moral. People like them would have society march backwards into the dark ages, negating all the progress that religion and zealous preachers have fought tirelessly to hinder. To them, saving souls is worth all the countless lives that would be lost by abandoning this powerful tool for human progress.

That in essence is the ultimate tragedy. What if centuries ago there was an Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawkings who had insight into the world that could have advanced mankind out of the Dark Ages faster? Yet they were never able to contribute because zealous religious officials felt threatened by their work and had them silenced or even killed? There's no telling how many lives could have been spared, but that doesn't matter to these people. Any amount of death is worth it if it gains them favor of their invisible god. That, in every sense, is evil in it's purest form.

For a rebuttal of Kirk Cameron's many erroneous views, please check out the video below.

It's remarkable how often religious zealots play the victim. And who could blame them? It's easy to play the victim. It saves people the trouble of actually having to defend their position with rational arguments. Whenever some other group comes along, secular or religious, and says something they don't like, they rush to classify it as an issue of religious bigotry. As if any opposing viewpoint or differing opinion is somehow an insult to their way of thinking. It isn't just irrational. It's downright childish.

But that doesn't stop men like Ken Conner from writing articles that accuse scientists of all people of religious bigotry.

Science Theists Need Not Apply

The cores of Conner's article centers around Dr. Francis Collins, who President Obama picked to head the National Institutes of Health. Collins is a controversial figure because he's not just a scientist, he's a devout evangelical Christian who often tries to integrate his work as a scientist with his beliefs as a Christian. He's written various books such as "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief." He was also featured in the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" which presented a dubious case that the scientific community was anti-god and anti-Christian.

This notion is not only completely false, it's rediculous. Collins isn't criticized for his religious beliefs. Nor is he criticized for his work. He is a target because he is violating one of the most important aspects of science. He is trying to thrust the supernatural world of god, satan, angels, and miracles into the strictly rational process that is science. It is a major fallacy that any rational minded scientist is quick to point out. It's called 'violation of the philosophy of science.' It is a tenant as old as science itself. One cannot appeal to the supernatural or the spiritual when making a scientific claim. That is because science is inherently rational. It requires evidence, testable hyopothesis, and logic to prove points. To put any kind of god into the mix be it the Christian god or the Aztec god is to negate the very tenants of what makes science work.

Conner doesn't understand this and neither does Collins. They rely on emotional appeals that pain the scientists as cold, uncaring, and prejudice. They will gladly point out that some of the greatest minds of all time like Plato, Aristotle, and Newton were all devout believers. This is true, but never at any point did these men use the supernatural in their work. They never appealed to god or spirits of any kind to present justification for their claims. In science, one's personal beliefs are completely irrelevant. It does not matter of a scientist is a devout believer in god or is a worshipper of the sun. What matters is the claims they make and the evidence they use to back it up. It is the evidence that trumps personal beliefs. It doesn't matter where it came from or who it came from. If it can be verified and vindicated, it is worth just as much as any work from a devout believer.

Conner will also argue without god, science lacks ethics. But this is a completely false assumption. It assumes people need god to make good moral decisions. This is a complete misnomer considering people have had god for years and used it to justify violence, prejudice, racisim, slavery, murder, and genocide. Conner and Collins try and make it seem as though without religion, science is somehow evil. But science is not evil. It can't be evil. Only people can be evil. Science by it's own definition is objective and unbias. It is the human beings who use it.

When it comes to the debate between religion and science, the issue is clear. Science is inherently rational and based on evidence, logic, and reason. Religion is inherently irrational and based on faith, superstition, and the supernatural. One cannot be used in the context of the other without destroying the premise of the other. Men like Conner and Collins are destroying their credibility by trying to have their cake and eat it to. There's nothing bioted, prejudice, or bias about it. It's irrational, illogical, and flat out wrong. Plain and simple.

It has often been said that it is impossible for a society to have freedom of religion without freedom from religion. Therefore, it is the responsibility of a free secular state to actively avoid religious discourse in public places. This seems contrary to the notion of free speech, another pillar of the free society that the free secular state is responsible for protecting. So at which point does one intersect with the other? Where do the lines form?

The answer is simple. There are no lines.

Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are the same thing. They are two sides of the same coin. The freedom to express one's religion in any way they see fit is no different than the freedom of one's right to speak out. The same rights and responsibilities apply. So long as it is peaceful, not obstructing the life, liberty, and property of another individual, it is entirely protected by the free society. But some do not make this distinction. Some consider religious expression to be it's own category of expression and thus the state needs special powers to police it. This has led to an erosion of the ideals of freedom espoused by the founding fathers.

Take for instances the famous court cases McCollum vs. Board of Education Dist. 71 that banned religious instruction in public schools or the Engel v. Vitale case that banned prayer in public schools. These cases all used the same reasoning to ban religious displays. It violated the establishment clause of the constitution which states that the government cannot support any one religion over the other no matter how dominant it may be. It's a good principle for a secular state, but in these cases it was pushed beyond the limits into the realm of censorship. There's no way around it. By banning discussion of religion in schools, that is censorship. It may offend atheists at times, but in this country there is no right not to be offended.

Take a step back from these cases and approach them reasonably. Was the government acting through force? Did beauracrats on local, state, or federal levels impose the teaching of religion or prayer in the schools directly? Or was it something that was decided by the school itself or the local parents? If it is the case that the government is directly forcing schools to teach or condone specific religious themes over another, then that is unconstitutional. But in many of these cases, it was the schools themselves and the communities that wanted these religious themes in their schools. And why shouldn't they be allowed? So long as nobody is forcing them and it is done peacefully, what right do the courts have to force them to stop? In the strictest constitutional sense, they don't.

So what about the atheists or the non-believers like myself that go to these schools? Well so long as the schools do not force prayer and teaching on the students, there should not be a problem. If school officials were doing this to atheists as a form of harassment, that would be a violation of rights and the courts do have a right to punish those who do this. But to make a vast, broad judgment that bans these practices across the board is an abuse of power and an affront to the free society.

But it isn't just non-believers who abuse these privlidges. Religous groups are just as guilty. The best case has to do with creationism. Take cases like Edwards v. Aguillard that overruled a law in Louisiana forcing schools to teach creationism alongside evolution. The key aspect of the law was force. Schools had to push creationism by law. And not just any creationism like that of Native American or Hindu stories. They had to push the strict interpretation of Genesis in a science classroom. This was a clear case of the government using force to favor one religous group over another. As such, it is unconstitutional because it abuses the powers of the state. It was later verified again in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case in 2003 that banned the teaching of intelligent design for the same reasons.

Now how is this not censorship? It's simple when one takes context into account. Creationism was being pushed in science classes as an alternative viewpoint of the truth. But in a free society, certain ideas cannot be propped up by the government just because certain groups really believe in them. Creationism and Intelligent Design failed in the marketplace of idea. They were proven to be false by science and as such, they were dropped from science classrooms. But certain religous groups didn't like that. So to make up for the fact that their dogma was not verified by science, they got the government to force it upon the people. That use of force is a clear violation of liberty, religous and non-religious alike. Now if creation stories were taught in a religious class or in literature, that's a different story because that's a different context. So long as the state doesn't force this upon students as truth, then it is perfectly fine in a school.

The Founding Fathers were for freedom and religous liberty equally. The idea of a free society harkoning back to the enlightenment was that free expression and the free exchange of ideas allows ideas and beliefs to stand on their own merits. So if certain ideas like creationism do not stand enough on their merits, they are rejected. As such, the government cannot prop certain ideas up over others. When it comes to religious, the key is for the state to stay out of the affairs of the chruch and allow religious groups to thrive on their own merits. If one is more dominant than others, let them be dominent so long as they can persuade their people that they are a good group to be a part of. And if they wish to leave that group, let them. So long as force is not involved, the freedom to practice any religious or no religion at all is warrented in a free society.

As an atheist, most assume I am for eliminating religion from society. I'm not. I am an ardent believer in allowing people to follow their own spiritual path. If some wish to be Christians, that's okay. If some wish to be Muslim, that's okay too. If some wish to worship Satan, that's just as valid. So long as none of these groups harass me or force me to take part in their customs, I'm okay with it. The free society comes before my own spiritual beliefs or lack thereof. I am and always have been for a free society where the state does not interfere with the church and people and communities are allowed to follow their own path.

It's an age-old mantra. You can't prove a negative. Reasonable people engaging in reasonable debates understand this. Irrational people engaging in baseless propaganda do not. Unfortunately, it's the irrational people in power throughout government and religion that abandon reason and spew nonsense to the masses with no basis in fact. This is all well and good in a free society. The problem is, uneducated and uninformed people believe it can lead to destructive policies.

First off, the idea of proving a negative isn't so clear cut. While the mantra is true for the most part, in a strictly philosophical sense it is in fact possible to prove a negative. But it is only possible when the claim is falsifiable. For instance, if someone asks a random person to prove that there isn't a rat in their left pocket, the person can prove that by reaching into their pocket and showing that there is nothing there. The claim stated was falsifiable, meaning it could be disproved.

Proving a negative with reason: Evolving Thought

Other claims made in this context are a lot more complicated and more often then not, they are impossible to prove. Many of the claims come across every day and are used as arguments. These include questions such as:

You can't prove Obama's stimulus package didn't help the economy.

You can't prove banks and customers didn't know the loans they were giving out were bogus.

You can't prove the drug war didn't contribute to the violence in Mexico.

You can't prove that god doesn't exist.

You can't prove that Jesus Christ wasn't the son of god.

You can't prove creationism didn't happen.

You can't prove homosexuality isn't a choice.

You can't prove gay marriage won't harm society.

You can't prove abortion isn't murder.

Every one of these claims has the same fallacy. Proving something isn't present just isn't reasonable. This is because proving negatives require that the entire domain of the argument is understandable, measurable, and verifiable. It must fit the test of falsification. But the breadth of these matters is beyond falsification because it is impossible to verify facts with esoteric and intangible factors.

That is why rational people making rational arguments ask that those making the claim prove it. Their mantra is positive claims require positive evidence (evidence that something is present). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Making the claim that a certain bill from the president did improve the economy can be verified by quantitatively measuring the changes of the economy in conjunction with the changes of the bill and verifying that there was a causal relationship. That is purely reasonable. The problem is, most people in the news and in politics don't do this. Obama famously said "We can't afford to do nothing." It is a negative claim that isn't verifiable, but most people didn't understand that and nothing could be done to stop it.

The same issues emerge in religion. Believers often put the burden of proof on the non-believers, saying they are the ones who have to prove their invisible deity doesn't exist. But the same fallacy applies. Richard Dawkins made the same argument by claiming you can't prove there isn't a teapot orbiting the sun. That is why reasonable people say unless you can prove there is a teapot there, then they don't believe it. It is the believers that are making the claim that there is a deity present, but they offer proof of it. They rely on other fallacies like anecdotal evidence, emotional appeals, and religious texts they allege were divinely inspired. None of this is proof. That is why it is assumed on faith. In a strictly reasonable context, it is impossible to prove any deity. One can only have faith that the deity is there. But too often people equate faith with truth or fact. It isn't. It is an unprovable claim that too many people avoid and pass off as truth and those who do not understand reason are prone to accept it.

Fearmongering, propaganda, and moral panics all emerge from irrational rhetoric. Religion and government use it all the time and so does the media because in many ways, it's easier than checking facts. In a free society people are free to believe, behave, and carry themselves as they wish so long as they do not impose on others. But to defend these freedoms, there needs to be rational policy with reasonable people. So long as religion and government stand in the way, the free society will constantly be challenged. And reason is the best weapon against nonsense.

Before the founding of the American Republic, it was unheard of for a country not to have an official religion. The founding fathers sought to set themselves apart from the tyranny and autocracy of European powers at the time by leaving their new country open for any religion, regardless of how great a majority it may be in the populace, to thrive and benefit from equal protection under the law. It is one of the reasons why so religious groups like muslims, jews, catholics, and buddhists have been able to come to America and enjoy the success wrought by freedom and liberty.

But in the era of political correctness, religious liberty is being continually contorted in ways that go against the very principles of freedom. Recently, Townhall columnist Chuck Norris reported on a situation that would have been laughable if it weren't true:

Got your permit to study the Bible?

The event was a real headscratcher. David and Mary Jones were visited by a county code enforcement officer on April 10 (Good Friday) after receiving a complaint about their Christian gatherings, which included only around 15 people. After hearing they did things such as pray, read scripture, and discuss spiritual matters they were given a cease and desist order. That's worth repeating. An official of law enforcement told two people with the same legal rights as everyone else to cease and desist their religious gatherings.

That's not the only incident of it's kind. On June 3rd the Associated Press reported that a Pennsylvania court ruled 2-1 that a Kindergartner's mother cannot read the bible for show-and-tell, even if it is her favorite book.

Terry Paulson: Put Your Bet On God Over Newsweek