Was a Win for Obama Victory for Secularists?

Edit: My friend Emily Dietle has an excellent post about churches serving as voting locations that readers of this might article might enjoy.

-----------------------------------------------------------

In the wake of Obama's win, CNN's Belief Blog co-editor Dan Gilgoff is wondering whether the Religious Right's influence has waned. He describes the situation as a nightmare for many conservative Christians. "Same-sex marriage adopted by voters in some states," Gilgoff pointed out, adding, "Rigorously anti-abortion candidates defeated in conservative red states." Though Gilgoff doesn't point this out in his article, it can also be pointed out that, a recent survey indicated that around 30% of young people do not self-identify as having any sort of religious affiliation. It would seem that liberal secularists are winning.

But I don't think the case is as clear as some people would have us believe. Among states in the Bible Belt, with the exceptions of Virginia and Florida, Obama suffered losses (see the election results by state here). The same is true of the Mormon corridor, with Romney leading with a percent difference of nearly 200%. A 2004 Gallup poll reported that Alabama was the most religious state in the country, with 76% of people self-reporting as Protestant. In Alabama, Romney led by a percent difference of just over 58%. And all of the data on Creationism indicate that disbelief in evolution (and belief in a literal view of the Bible) has been remarkably stable (around 50%) since people started taking data of that kind. In fact, a recent Gallup poll reported an increase in evolution denial (though this was within the historically reported variation).

How should we understand this complicated picture, where, by some accounts, the Religious Right is getting more radical, by others they are relatively stable, and by still other accounts (like Gilgoff's) the Religious Right is losing power?

Respect Family's Right to Their Own Funerals

I cannot imagine a more egregious offence to the right of private citizens to their own beliefs than to force the inclusion of a particular doctrine at a funeral. Yet, this is precisely what certain lawmakers in Texas are trying to do. Everyone, regardless of religious persuasion or attitude, should have the right to be buried in whatever respect that they wish. Instead, certain Texas politicians are pushing for the mandatory inclusion of Christian iconography and ritual at the funerals of soldiers, regardless of the wishes of families or of the deceased.

As if Rick Perry's stance on science, religion, and their role in governance wasn't already morally despicable, lawmakers in his own state are now pushing for this rubbish. Take a look here.

Are Religious People Delusional?

I think the answer is a resounding no.

I have told this to both religious people and atheists in the past, and both have actually given me quizzical looks. The religious person because they assume that non-believers think believers must be nuts and atheists because, frankly, many of them think believers are nuts (though clearly not all; many atheists used to be devoutly religious and do not think that their losing religious convictions involved becoming more sane.) Therefore, let me explain myself lest I get in trouble with both groups.

Local Ask an Atheist Event

Well, today we had an Ask an Atheist event, this time with 100% less stabbing action. It was inspired by the yearly national day organised by the Secular Student Alliance. It was mildly boring. One girl walked by, read our sign, laughed, and yelled "I love Tech!" There was a stereotypical Fraternity-type guy who walked by, one of my female friends tried to say hi to him, and he just laughed at her. We had a Jewish girl come up and tell us that despite being a Jew, she liked atheists and that her friend (who wasn't present) was an atheist. She asked for literature and for a sticker. We even had a pre-freshman approach us and take a fair bit of literature, much to the chagrin of his mother (who stayed back quite a distance.)

On the Cosmological Argument

There is a certain deductive argument for the existence of God that is particularly more popular than others. Unlike other purely deductive arguments for God's existence, the Cosmological Argument is one which is readily used by the laity, albeit not under that name. Since the time of Saint Thomas Aquinas, it has been an established part of Catholic doctrine. In fact, there is a certain Catholic tradition which regards the existence of God as something which is deductively provable without reference to the Bible, church authorities, or faith. Instead, from mere recourse to logic alone, the doctrine states that we should be able to deduce God's existence. Several such  deductive arguments were proposed by Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm, and other scholars from the medieval period, often drawing from earlier work (most notably Aristotle and Plato.) Later, inductive and/or abductive arguments joined the fray, including William Paley's 19th century divine watchmaker argument (which would lead to its modern incarnation as Intelligent Design.)