...About my upcoming appearance on the local ABC radio station to talk about Easter.
1233 presenter Carol Duncan put out the call on twitter - she was looking for an atheist/secular humanist to join her on air to talk about Easter, what it means to an atheist, and how belief (or lack of belief) colours one's worldview and gives meaning to life. I eagerly put myself forward and was accepted - after what I am sure was a less than frenetic response - to appear on a kind of panel discussion with, among others, the Anglican Dean of Newcastle Dr. James Rigney. A fascinating discussion it is sure to be.
However, the reaction to my (somewhat excited) announcement that I'd be gracing the airwaves of Newcastle in the next few days has been universal: A grimace, strained through a polite smile, and a dreaded question, voiced carefully. 'You're not going to cause trouble, are you?'
My reaction, typical of me (as anyone that knows me will attest), was to very politely take each of these admonitions in light-hearted spirits, assure them that not everything has to be an arm wrestle and, when the occasion calls for it (namely all the time), I am quite capable of holding a civilised, reasonable and buoyant discussion. Even with people who do not strictly adhere to the exact same beliefs that I hold.
It is one of the greater ironies of the public perception of atheism. A movement (I think it is safe to call it a movement now) built on free thought and critical thinking is considered to be strident, beligerent, arrogant, argumentative and, it seems, incompatible with everyday, amicable discussion. As I detailed in the previous post, there are naturally going to be differences of opinion between, say, a catholic and an atheist. This doesn't mean it has to come to blows, or that anyone has to feel antagonised. Civilised people will, when left to their devices, conduct civilised discussions. Atheists, the last time I checked, are civilised people.
I plan to discuss my opinions on the Easter holiday (I'll post a wrap-up here when I'm done), what it means to me and my family, how my lack of belief in god is just as valid and fulfilling a worldview as any religious one, and to engage anyone on any topic they would care to talk about with a smile and, hopefully, a laugh.
Like I said, I'll post a wrap up on here when I'm done with it on thursday, and hopefully will be reporting on what a great time was had by all.
In the meantime, I cannot wait to get into the studio and show just about everyone in Newcastle (including members of my family and some very close friends) that an atheist is nothing to be scared of.
Quite the opposite. We are imponderably lovely.
Monday 29 March 2010
Thursday 25 March 2010
Don't Be Ridiculous
Nothing short of a quest for meaning...
Followers of this blog - and I realise that, at the moment, these are mythical beings - will see a theme emerging over a few of the previous posts. I have been trying to find some kind of concrete definition of what constitutes ridicule of the religious and their beliefs. It all started with the Questions of Faith blog and my interest has since then been fuelled by media reports in the aftermath of the GAC. Before the convention even started, the verdict was in: Atheists are all disrespectful of religious beliefs and cannot raise themselves above ridicule and militancy. This was hinted at in post #1 of Questions of Fath, repeated many times in this country's media during the visit of one Richard Dawkins, and is an accusation levelled at atheists time and again in general conversation, political forums, lively debates and congregational meetings.
I've been looking into it for some time now and I think I have discovered the definition of ridicule when it comes to religion.
Ridicule: Any statement or phrase that indicates a difference of opinion, an assertion of disbelief or an outright disagreement with any generally accepted religious concept.
Let me explain further.
Matters of Tone, Disrespect and Avoiding the Issue...
I tried to cut this excerpt from Q&A down. I could not. Please bear with me as I ask you to read this excerpt from the transcript.
This situation is going to be familiar to a lot of atheists. The question, prior to this debate on Q&A kicking off, was put to Richard Dawkins about morality coming from the bible, about the bible containing a notion of absolute morality, and how humanity can divine these concepts in no other way. A bold assertion, certainly, that Dawkins tries to refute by demonstrating what he believes to be an extremely amoral part of the New Testament. Read it for yourself and decide if I'm misrepresenting the situation.
The reaction, as you can see, is bristly. Immediately, upon declaring the story of Jesus' crucifixion a 'horrible and depraved' notion, he is taken to task by Julie Biship in a round-about way and Tony Burke in a direct way for being incredibly disrespectful. I invite the deputy leader of the opposition and the minister to remember exactly what it is we are talking about here: the torture and murder of an innocent man, upon which the weight of all the sins of every man in the world was transferred so that human kind could go on living without the burden of responsibility for their transgressions. The story goes that he was beaten, made to carry his own cross to the top of a hill, whereupon he was hung by nails through his hands, furnished with a crown of thorns, and made to suffer horribly until the point that he died. Go back and re-read that last sentence and raise your hand at the point where you find the words 'horrible and depraved' do not apply. I don't imagine many people typing, one handed, into my comments box to tell me exactly where this occurred.
In the transcript above we have written in plan text exactly what occurred - the Professor detailed which parts of the bible he found less than admirable, asked the audience whether they believed the story to be admirable themselves, and invited them to 'keep it'. That is a disagreement. On any other topic imaginable, this would be called 'not seeing eye-to-eye'. People would amicably enough move on and concentrate on the real point - in this case, does morality come from the bible or not. In the religious debate, we do not find this to be the case. People are unwilling to move beyond their objections to the disagreement and, as a result, those doing the disagreeing are labelled disrespectful and accused of ridicule.
I put this to Margaret Coffey of Questions of Faith and her response may have seemed quite reasonable to her at the time. She claimed that what most Christians take issue with in these matters is the 'tone' in which they are addressed. While I have no problem admitting that you can find examples of strident and immature atheists in the world who want nothing more than an ecumenical game of fisticuffs with a staunch religionist, I'm going to take specific issue with this for the simple reason that 'tone' is not a consideration in any other debate, anywhere, ever. Further to that, matters of tone are not taken into consideration in the reverse - the religious are never seen to turn the accusation of disrespect back on themselves. A curious double standard emerges. An atheist that disagrees with a Christian is being strident, ridiculing beliefs and generally making a nuisance of themselves. A Christian who disagrees with an atheist is simply one of the majority and the assertion of their views a fact of everyday life in a country founded on Christian principles.
Consider this: some two streets away from my house is a Catholic school. This school has a notice board out the front of it that reads 'Catholic Education Week: Education of the whole person' (Italics are mine). If a Christian takes issue with Richard Dawkins' disagreement with their beliefs, am I not entitled to take offense at the idea that my public school education was deficient in that it only educated part of me, and not the whole? Am I allowed to take issue with the tone being employed here, and campaign to have them say 'Catholic Education Week: Of course other points of view are valid, we believe ours is quite good, and invite you to consider sending your children to us after a careful elimination of all the other options because of our specific set of values that work for us :-)"? (The smiley face is very important - this is a notice board, after all, and it is important we know that the writer was smiling at the time).
Of Course Not.
Nor do I want to.
Am I to take offense at the fact that, despite sunday morning services around the country going on peacefully and undisturbed every single week, the one weekend the atheists decided to have a conference a table of Christians set up outside to hand out pamphlets? Ask yourself: How respectful is that? You will certainly not find the reverse - no atheist has ever approached a full church on sunday morning and handed out 'There's probably no god, so stop worrying and enjoy life' stickers. But is this something worth getting riled up about?
Of course not.
Am I to take offense to the brave Christian woman who stood in the middle of the Athiest Convention and declared "I'm afraid I do believe in God, and I will be praying for all of us before bed tonight"? You would not find me approaching a church in Newcastle and shouting from the pulpit 'I think you've all got kind of the wrong idea, here'. Surely there is something to be said for the disrespect that unwanted prayer for the unfaithful incurs? Are we not to get riled up, take ourselves off in a huff, and refuse to engage in the argument over religion ever again because we don't feel we are being treated fairly?
Of course not.
OF COURSE NOT.
A Civil Tongue - For Civil Ears...
These are petty concerns. They are the attitude of the precious and the smothered and the protected, and they show a spectacular want to avoid the issue that is being talked about. Some days ago I sent a text message to Paul Bevan on 1233 ABC Newcastle which, as far as I know, was read out (I got waylaid with work and was unable to listen). It went like this:
It more or less summarises what I am trying to say here. The nature of argument is that people are going to disagree. It is a fact of life that, at some point, someone is going to clash with your own point of view. It is important to know that when this does happen that the other is not automatically being disrespectful of your point of view by virtue of the fact that they do not share it. I actually believe that most people already know and understand this but, bizarrely, we make one exception: religion.
We could all make a legitimate claim, no matter what side of the debate we are on, to being treated with insensitivity by the other side. To allow ourselves to get bogged down in this rather than pick up and carry on with what actually matters - the content of the debate - is to do ourselves and the future of our society a great disservice.
Those that demand a civil tongue be kept would be well reminded that a civil ear is the other side of that equation. 'I do not like your tone' will become less and less of an excuse as this debate between secular and religious values continues, and the sooner that it is swept aside like the lame straw man that it is the sooner we will be able to make some actual progress and find a common ground. Until then, atheists will be forced to defend themselves from sweeping accusations of disrespect and insensitivity, theists will retreat further into their cotton wool fortresses, and the status quo will remain statically quoed.
When the status quo allows things like the trampling of womens rights, the oppression of entire cultures, the deaths of thousands in meaningless wars over devastated and war-torn deserts, the suppression of homosexual rights, the institutionalised rape and torture of children (a practice that I will not refer to by its sensitive alternative, 'abuse') by their annointed spiritual leaders and the indoctrination of millions of people on pain of death, it is something that we all ought to be showing a little more urgency to try and shift.
Followers of this blog - and I realise that, at the moment, these are mythical beings - will see a theme emerging over a few of the previous posts. I have been trying to find some kind of concrete definition of what constitutes ridicule of the religious and their beliefs. It all started with the Questions of Faith blog and my interest has since then been fuelled by media reports in the aftermath of the GAC. Before the convention even started, the verdict was in: Atheists are all disrespectful of religious beliefs and cannot raise themselves above ridicule and militancy. This was hinted at in post #1 of Questions of Fath, repeated many times in this country's media during the visit of one Richard Dawkins, and is an accusation levelled at atheists time and again in general conversation, political forums, lively debates and congregational meetings.
I've been looking into it for some time now and I think I have discovered the definition of ridicule when it comes to religion.
Ridicule: Any statement or phrase that indicates a difference of opinion, an assertion of disbelief or an outright disagreement with any generally accepted religious concept.
Let me explain further.
Matters of Tone, Disrespect and Avoiding the Issue...
I tried to cut this excerpt from Q&A down. I could not. Please bear with me as I ask you to read this excerpt from the transcript.
RICHARD DAWKINS: The New Testament - you believe, if you believe in the New Testament, that God, the all powerful creator of the universe couldn't think of a better way to forgive humanity's sins than to have himself put on earth, tortured and executed in atonement for the sins of humanity? What kind of a horrible, depraved notion is that?
JULIE BISHOP: You know, can I just say one thing?
TONY JONES: Yes.
JULIE BISHOP: You know what disturbs me about this debate and that is that people should respect other people's views. Now, the neo-creationists say that there's no scientific theory or fact and they deny it and the neo-Darwinists deny that there's faith or religion. Let's show some respect for different people's views and then I think the debate will be perhaps much more pleasant.
RICHARD DAWKINS: What is wrong - when you say - you're implying I didn't show respect.
JULIE BISHOP: No, I'm saying that what disturbs me about this debate and we see it often is that there are extremes. And whenever I see extremes I'm concerned.
RICHARD DAWKINS: But the extreme is in the New Testament. I simply told you what is New Testament doctrine. That is St Paul's view, which is accepted by Christianity. That's why Christ came to earth, in order to atone for humanity's sins. If it's extreme, it's not me that's being extreme, it's the new testament that's being extreme.
TONY JONES: No, well, I'm going to jump in here, because is that not a story of sacrifice and therefore has something admirable attached to it which is the opposite of what you suggested?
RICHARD DAWKINS: Do you think it's admirable? You think it's admirable that God actually had himself tortured for the sins of humanity?
TONY JONES: That is the Christian view obviously.
RICHARD DAWKINS: That is the Christian view. If you think that's admirable, you can keep it.
TONY JONES: Okay. Tony Burke, first of all, quickly?
TONY BURKE: I don't think your ridicule of people's faith is much better than what you're criticising. I really don't.
RICHARD DAWKINS: But I just stated it. I didn't ridicule it. I simply stated it.
TONY BURKE: No. No. No. No. Sorry, if you go back over the words you used, once you're stating it you did then ridicule it. You did. And if you want to look at the challenges and the conflicts and making a community around the world work together, then the level of respect that so many religions have not shown for each other absolutely needs to be lifted and your level of respect and tolerance could probably be a bit better too.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Let me answer that. Let me answer that. I did not more than state the Christian doctrine and Tony then said, "That is the Christian doctrine. Isn't it admirable." People said, "Yes, it's admirable." So how is it disrespectful if I simply state what it is and half the audience think it's admirable? What's disrespectful about stating it?
TONY BURKE: Press rewind, hear your own words. You have changed them.
TONY JONES: Okay.
RICHARD DAWKINS: I have not.
This situation is going to be familiar to a lot of atheists. The question, prior to this debate on Q&A kicking off, was put to Richard Dawkins about morality coming from the bible, about the bible containing a notion of absolute morality, and how humanity can divine these concepts in no other way. A bold assertion, certainly, that Dawkins tries to refute by demonstrating what he believes to be an extremely amoral part of the New Testament. Read it for yourself and decide if I'm misrepresenting the situation.
The reaction, as you can see, is bristly. Immediately, upon declaring the story of Jesus' crucifixion a 'horrible and depraved' notion, he is taken to task by Julie Biship in a round-about way and Tony Burke in a direct way for being incredibly disrespectful. I invite the deputy leader of the opposition and the minister to remember exactly what it is we are talking about here: the torture and murder of an innocent man, upon which the weight of all the sins of every man in the world was transferred so that human kind could go on living without the burden of responsibility for their transgressions. The story goes that he was beaten, made to carry his own cross to the top of a hill, whereupon he was hung by nails through his hands, furnished with a crown of thorns, and made to suffer horribly until the point that he died. Go back and re-read that last sentence and raise your hand at the point where you find the words 'horrible and depraved' do not apply. I don't imagine many people typing, one handed, into my comments box to tell me exactly where this occurred.
In the transcript above we have written in plan text exactly what occurred - the Professor detailed which parts of the bible he found less than admirable, asked the audience whether they believed the story to be admirable themselves, and invited them to 'keep it'. That is a disagreement. On any other topic imaginable, this would be called 'not seeing eye-to-eye'. People would amicably enough move on and concentrate on the real point - in this case, does morality come from the bible or not. In the religious debate, we do not find this to be the case. People are unwilling to move beyond their objections to the disagreement and, as a result, those doing the disagreeing are labelled disrespectful and accused of ridicule.
I put this to Margaret Coffey of Questions of Faith and her response may have seemed quite reasonable to her at the time. She claimed that what most Christians take issue with in these matters is the 'tone' in which they are addressed. While I have no problem admitting that you can find examples of strident and immature atheists in the world who want nothing more than an ecumenical game of fisticuffs with a staunch religionist, I'm going to take specific issue with this for the simple reason that 'tone' is not a consideration in any other debate, anywhere, ever. Further to that, matters of tone are not taken into consideration in the reverse - the religious are never seen to turn the accusation of disrespect back on themselves. A curious double standard emerges. An atheist that disagrees with a Christian is being strident, ridiculing beliefs and generally making a nuisance of themselves. A Christian who disagrees with an atheist is simply one of the majority and the assertion of their views a fact of everyday life in a country founded on Christian principles.
Consider this: some two streets away from my house is a Catholic school. This school has a notice board out the front of it that reads 'Catholic Education Week: Education of the whole person' (Italics are mine). If a Christian takes issue with Richard Dawkins' disagreement with their beliefs, am I not entitled to take offense at the idea that my public school education was deficient in that it only educated part of me, and not the whole? Am I allowed to take issue with the tone being employed here, and campaign to have them say 'Catholic Education Week: Of course other points of view are valid, we believe ours is quite good, and invite you to consider sending your children to us after a careful elimination of all the other options because of our specific set of values that work for us :-)"? (The smiley face is very important - this is a notice board, after all, and it is important we know that the writer was smiling at the time).
Of Course Not.
Nor do I want to.
Am I to take offense at the fact that, despite sunday morning services around the country going on peacefully and undisturbed every single week, the one weekend the atheists decided to have a conference a table of Christians set up outside to hand out pamphlets? Ask yourself: How respectful is that? You will certainly not find the reverse - no atheist has ever approached a full church on sunday morning and handed out 'There's probably no god, so stop worrying and enjoy life' stickers. But is this something worth getting riled up about?
Of course not.
Am I to take offense to the brave Christian woman who stood in the middle of the Athiest Convention and declared "I'm afraid I do believe in God, and I will be praying for all of us before bed tonight"? You would not find me approaching a church in Newcastle and shouting from the pulpit 'I think you've all got kind of the wrong idea, here'. Surely there is something to be said for the disrespect that unwanted prayer for the unfaithful incurs? Are we not to get riled up, take ourselves off in a huff, and refuse to engage in the argument over religion ever again because we don't feel we are being treated fairly?
Of course not.
OF COURSE NOT.
A Civil Tongue - For Civil Ears...
These are petty concerns. They are the attitude of the precious and the smothered and the protected, and they show a spectacular want to avoid the issue that is being talked about. Some days ago I sent a text message to Paul Bevan on 1233 ABC Newcastle which, as far as I know, was read out (I got waylaid with work and was unable to listen). It went like this:
Paul, regarding the atheist lack of respect: I wonder, should we beware the theists who cry 'disrespect' and 'insensitivity' during every single debate on the topic of religion? It seems to me a very easy way to avoid engaging with the actual issues. 'I don't like your tone, therefore this debate is over'. A genuine problem arises when 'disrespect' is confused with disagreement and all debate is halted. Respect for individuals is of course a given - but it is impossible for an argument to take place unless beliefs are questioned. Consider what parliament would be like if politicians demanded respect and sensitivity for their position on the political spectrum. More time would be spent apologizing than arguing. While a cordial level of respect should OF COURSE be maintained between two parties to a lively discussion no matter the topic, it is surely silly to expect that neither will say something that other finds unpalatable. I end with the words of Christopher Hitchens: 'As long as we are having a civilised conversation, why is there a need to keep insisting that is what we are doing'? (Mitch, Newcastle - does not know the meaning of brevity).
It more or less summarises what I am trying to say here. The nature of argument is that people are going to disagree. It is a fact of life that, at some point, someone is going to clash with your own point of view. It is important to know that when this does happen that the other is not automatically being disrespectful of your point of view by virtue of the fact that they do not share it. I actually believe that most people already know and understand this but, bizarrely, we make one exception: religion.
We could all make a legitimate claim, no matter what side of the debate we are on, to being treated with insensitivity by the other side. To allow ourselves to get bogged down in this rather than pick up and carry on with what actually matters - the content of the debate - is to do ourselves and the future of our society a great disservice.
Those that demand a civil tongue be kept would be well reminded that a civil ear is the other side of that equation. 'I do not like your tone' will become less and less of an excuse as this debate between secular and religious values continues, and the sooner that it is swept aside like the lame straw man that it is the sooner we will be able to make some actual progress and find a common ground. Until then, atheists will be forced to defend themselves from sweeping accusations of disrespect and insensitivity, theists will retreat further into their cotton wool fortresses, and the status quo will remain statically quoed.
When the status quo allows things like the trampling of womens rights, the oppression of entire cultures, the deaths of thousands in meaningless wars over devastated and war-torn deserts, the suppression of homosexual rights, the institutionalised rape and torture of children (a practice that I will not refer to by its sensitive alternative, 'abuse') by their annointed spiritual leaders and the indoctrination of millions of people on pain of death, it is something that we all ought to be showing a little more urgency to try and shift.
Wednesday 17 March 2010
#AtheistCon - The Aftermath
So, a decent few days back from AtheistCon and the ripples we caused in the media are beginning to subside. It's been incredibly interesting to look at the fallout from a humble two-and-a-half days' discussion on what we don't believe in. I'd like to make a couple of (brief as possible) points.
- Questions of Faith - I'm genuinely torn over the coverage of AtheistCon by the Radio National blog 'Questions of Faith'. My previous posts will reveal a short exchange I had with the owners of the blog about the role ridicule has to play with religion - it was mostly go-nowhere, but then again, most blog comments are. The best way to summarise my thoughts is to probably go from negative to positive, because it will leave a better taste in the mouth of any impartial reader.
Negative - Much was made initially about the militant tone that atheists take with the religious and, while I acknowledge that this tone exists amoung some of them, I found the hypocrisy to be a bit annoying. In the first few posts before the convention even began, we had Margaret Coffey and Gary Bryson making clicking noises with their tongues. Two accusations of discourteousness within two posts, followed by a cynical accusation against Richard Dawkins that he was likely going to be spruiking his latest book (anyone in attendance will tell you that this was certainly not the case). I was ready to give the Questions of Faith team the benefit of the doubt, but they made their stance on the convention known early. Something along the lines of "It might surprise us, but we expect it to be a bunch of muck-slinging and back patting" (NOT a quote). It was not in the spirit of the mutual cooperation they sought. Briefly on the negative side also: It bears mentioning that by allowing the Questions of Faith team cover the convention, the ABC let the whole point of atheism skip over their heads. Would they let the Grandstand team cover the This Is Not Art festival?
Positive - As the posts went on and, particularly, when guest bloggers were invited to make contributions, I found the general quality of the blog went up. Some of the information provided could best be described as 'selective' (for example, mention of the terrifically moving speech by Taslima Nasrin was limited to a single post, in which the terrifically banal rationale 'there is no more that needs to be said' was employed. There is plenty that needs to be said on the issues Taslima Nasrin is facing), but overall there were plenty of points of view on offer. Like the general media coverage I found it to concentrate disconcertingly on the negative at times, but this is part of fair and balanced reporting and I take no issue with it here.
- General Media Coverage - There was a myriad of coverage about the conference that was, as I mentioned above, intially quite negative. In fact, for the first few days, it was left to convention speakers to defend the merit of the convention. If you have no time to follow the links, I'll summarise them for you: Dawkins gave a talk called 'The Pope is a Nazi and Steve Fielding is an Earthworm', then did the dead parrot sketch live on stage but replaced all the names with 'Mary McKillop. I was very disappointed to see this as the chosen line of reportage.
Dawkins' talk contained extremely few references to god or religion. When directly asked by an audience member what he thought of canonisation, he indeed responded that it was pure Monty Python - but he did not refer to the current Pope as a Nazi. Rather, he was referring to Pope Pius XII, himself up for canonisation around the same time as Mary McKillop. Pius XII was the Pope during the second world war. Dawkins forgot his name and referred to him as Pope Nazi, due to his time as Pope during the regime of Hitler. It is worth noting also that Dawkins' supposed reference to Senator Fielding as having an IQ lower than an earthworm was entirely hearsay, attributed to him by a secondary source. Decide for yourself whether this, out of three days worth of lectures and discussion, was worth the headlines it got.
Recently some more positive coverage has come out - interestingly, alot of them from British and online sources - that took a less sensationalist view of proceedings. I was happy to read these articles and to accept the messages embedded in them. The last thing we want is to be inaccessible to anyone but ourselves.
- 'Atheism - Another Religion' - You'll see it in the articles I've already linked to and generally in discussion about the place. Atheism, it seems, is taking on all the hallmarks of a religion. I mean, look at those atheists - they've had one conference at which they categorically denied the existence of the supernatural! That's incredibly reli...oh...well, I suppose it isn't.
There is nothing religious about atheism. This might take longer than I have to explain, but the differences are important. It's too easy to say that religions require faith where atheism requires nothing like that. It is more deep than that. Atheism is about critical thinking, arriving at conclusions that are independent of institutional doctrine, and inquiring freely on any given topic be it a secular or religious one. This is why, for example, one can appreciate Christopher Hitchens' views on religion yet disagree with him on his support of the Bush Administration during the invasion of Iraq. There is no dogma in atheism because there is no scripture, no structure, and most of all, no enforcement. As it was put by NonStampCollector (I suggest you look at some of his videos), 'If atheism is a religion, then not stamp collecting is a hobby, bald is a hair colour, and off is a TV channel'.
I guess I don't have the time to go into it in full detail. Anaolgies between atheism and religion are cheap to make - I suggest a bit of careful thought before diving in headfirst.
Aaaand that's it for tonight. More coming, everyone - for now...sleep.
One Double Homeospresso, please!
I made my homeopath a coffee brewed as 1 part coffee to 10^30 parts water.
Then I remembered he likes his coffee strong, so I brewed it in 10^40 parts water instead.
Monday 15 March 2010
Questions of Faith revisited
Got my response - from Gary Bryson, no less. I think it's bordering on deliciously wonderful, but I want to check with you bloggers first. Here is the exchange. I do not expect to get any further replies. Did Gary win this one, or did I? I really can't tell.
Mitch wrote on March 10, 2010 at 8:08 pm “In particular, I’m hoping to find an atheism which can transcend militancy and ridicule in its dealings with those who choose to take a path of faith.”
I’ve been thinking quite a bit about this lately, Margaret, and I have a serious question on the subject of ridicule that I hope you might be able to help me with. As one of these atheists that, I am sure, you would consider to be militant, I am at times baffled by the sensitivity of the faithful to ‘ridicule’ of their faith.
I have included the quotation marks because sometimes the definition of ‘ridicule’ in matters like atheism versus religion is stretched beyond all recognition. Take, for example, the panel on Q&A with Richard Dawkins on monday night. Prof. Dawkins highlighted the story of Jesus’ crucifiction and loudly declared ‘if you think that is moral, you can keep it’. That is all – he summarised the story and expressed his opinion that it was not one of moral substance. A very common point of view amoung atheists. He was then taken to task for ‘ridiculing’ the new testament.
Now, now. If we have come to define the term ‘ridicule’ as the mere suggestion that the bible is not a sound base for morality, then you will find precious little in the way of candidates for your program, I’m afraid. Respect should be observed on a person-to-person basis, of course – you will not find an atheist who disagrees with this. But I fear that it might be impossible to be an atheist without ridiculing the religious if the criteria for ridicule is ‘disagreement with scripture’.
I have more to say (obviously, I am an atheist on the internet, after all), but I’ll yield to what you said about keeping comments shortish. In the spirit of not wanting to appear militant or hostile in any way, I’ll add that I am not trying to rile anyone with this comment. I am genuinely interested to know what constitutes ridicule in the eyes of the faithful. I am sure a common ground can be found. We are all reasonable people.
Margaret Coffey wrote on March 11, 2010 at 10:24 am
David (I am sure Margaret meant 'Mitch'), I’m afraid that I didn’t see that Q&A. I’m familiar though with Richard Dawkins’ views on Jesus’ crucifixion. They are not unusual: Muslims, millions of them, ever since Mohammad, find the notion of the crucifixion and the role that event plays in Christianity incomprehensible and alienating. Most of them don’t express this view in those rather puerile terms that you quote. (I was going to write ‘juvenile’, but then I thought that would be to slur all juveniles). Instead, many fruitful interfaith exchanges are based on being able to discuss what Christians would reasonably find a challenging idea, but nevertheless should surely want to discuss. I think what people are often objecting to is a matter of tone.
Mitch wrote on March 14, 2010 at 11:53 pm
Margaret,
I’m afraid I’m going to have to take something of a hard line. My original question to you was one about the boundaries of ridicule. Your response was addressed to ‘David’, but I believe I’m right to assume it was meant for me.
You finished your post with this: “I think what people are often objecting to is a matter of tone.”
And the gist of yours and Gar’s comments tends to be that there is a general insensitivity, regardless of validity of position, when it comes to the way that atheists – particularly strong and vocal atheists – put their position forward. Please pull me up if I am misrepresenting the situation in the comments here.
I can scroll to the top of this page and find a more threatening and insensitive example of language use than anything said by Dawkins today or on that Q&A panel. These are strong words, final words, and they leave no room for interpretation. I’m talking about the title of this post.
“Without God We Are Nothing.”
I am sorry, but if the faithful reserve the right to become offended by ‘tone’, then they must be prepared for the counter. If tone of voice is the only criterion we need for offense, then I level the accusation directly back at you, vis-Ã -vis a phrase used by you to argue that atheists employ an insensitive tone in the first place. The Cardinal’s phrase is offensive in tone and belittling to all atheists, agnostics, skeptics and, while we are at it, polytheists, who do not believe in a god and are therefore slurrishly reduced to ‘nothing’. You then go on to
Now, I will point out here – it is lucky, then, that I do NOT accept the notion that we should be getting stroppy and offended by ‘matters of tone’. I do not like being petty and arguing on the manner that the words were spoken rather than the words themselves. To me, it is rather like picking through a thoughtful reply for spelling and grammar mistakes and therefore discounting the entire reply for it – universally recognised to be poor form. My suggestion is that we move past the issue of tone lest this degenerate into a ‘which side is more at fault’ argument.
Nobody wants that. We all have much more important things to talk about. And we will not be able to get to them unless we are able to let go of our personal feelings regarding matters of tone.
Gary Bryson wrote on March 15, 2010 at 6:35 pm
On the matter of “Without God We Are Nothing”, Mitch, you’ve obviously left your sense of irony at home. “Threatening and insensitive”? Read the post.
Mitch
Comment Pending Approval. wrote on March 16, 2010 at 1:25 am
Hi Gary,
Not really – the point of my comment was that I don’t consider the phrase threatening and insensitive and do not think anyone else should either.
Regards,
Mitch
Mitch wrote on March 10, 2010 at 8:08 pm “In particular, I’m hoping to find an atheism which can transcend militancy and ridicule in its dealings with those who choose to take a path of faith.”
I’ve been thinking quite a bit about this lately, Margaret, and I have a serious question on the subject of ridicule that I hope you might be able to help me with. As one of these atheists that, I am sure, you would consider to be militant, I am at times baffled by the sensitivity of the faithful to ‘ridicule’ of their faith.
I have included the quotation marks because sometimes the definition of ‘ridicule’ in matters like atheism versus religion is stretched beyond all recognition. Take, for example, the panel on Q&A with Richard Dawkins on monday night. Prof. Dawkins highlighted the story of Jesus’ crucifiction and loudly declared ‘if you think that is moral, you can keep it’. That is all – he summarised the story and expressed his opinion that it was not one of moral substance. A very common point of view amoung atheists. He was then taken to task for ‘ridiculing’ the new testament.
Now, now. If we have come to define the term ‘ridicule’ as the mere suggestion that the bible is not a sound base for morality, then you will find precious little in the way of candidates for your program, I’m afraid. Respect should be observed on a person-to-person basis, of course – you will not find an atheist who disagrees with this. But I fear that it might be impossible to be an atheist without ridiculing the religious if the criteria for ridicule is ‘disagreement with scripture’.
I have more to say (obviously, I am an atheist on the internet, after all), but I’ll yield to what you said about keeping comments shortish. In the spirit of not wanting to appear militant or hostile in any way, I’ll add that I am not trying to rile anyone with this comment. I am genuinely interested to know what constitutes ridicule in the eyes of the faithful. I am sure a common ground can be found. We are all reasonable people.
Margaret Coffey wrote on March 11, 2010 at 10:24 am
David (I am sure Margaret meant 'Mitch'), I’m afraid that I didn’t see that Q&A. I’m familiar though with Richard Dawkins’ views on Jesus’ crucifixion. They are not unusual: Muslims, millions of them, ever since Mohammad, find the notion of the crucifixion and the role that event plays in Christianity incomprehensible and alienating. Most of them don’t express this view in those rather puerile terms that you quote. (I was going to write ‘juvenile’, but then I thought that would be to slur all juveniles). Instead, many fruitful interfaith exchanges are based on being able to discuss what Christians would reasonably find a challenging idea, but nevertheless should surely want to discuss. I think what people are often objecting to is a matter of tone.
Mitch wrote on March 14, 2010 at 11:53 pm
Margaret,
I’m afraid I’m going to have to take something of a hard line. My original question to you was one about the boundaries of ridicule. Your response was addressed to ‘David’, but I believe I’m right to assume it was meant for me.
You finished your post with this: “I think what people are often objecting to is a matter of tone.”
And the gist of yours and Gar’s comments tends to be that there is a general insensitivity, regardless of validity of position, when it comes to the way that atheists – particularly strong and vocal atheists – put their position forward. Please pull me up if I am misrepresenting the situation in the comments here.
I can scroll to the top of this page and find a more threatening and insensitive example of language use than anything said by Dawkins today or on that Q&A panel. These are strong words, final words, and they leave no room for interpretation. I’m talking about the title of this post.
“Without God We Are Nothing.”
I am sorry, but if the faithful reserve the right to become offended by ‘tone’, then they must be prepared for the counter. If tone of voice is the only criterion we need for offense, then I level the accusation directly back at you, vis-Ã -vis a phrase used by you to argue that atheists employ an insensitive tone in the first place. The Cardinal’s phrase is offensive in tone and belittling to all atheists, agnostics, skeptics and, while we are at it, polytheists, who do not believe in a god and are therefore slurrishly reduced to ‘nothing’. You then go on to
Now, I will point out here – it is lucky, then, that I do NOT accept the notion that we should be getting stroppy and offended by ‘matters of tone’. I do not like being petty and arguing on the manner that the words were spoken rather than the words themselves. To me, it is rather like picking through a thoughtful reply for spelling and grammar mistakes and therefore discounting the entire reply for it – universally recognised to be poor form. My suggestion is that we move past the issue of tone lest this degenerate into a ‘which side is more at fault’ argument.
Nobody wants that. We all have much more important things to talk about. And we will not be able to get to them unless we are able to let go of our personal feelings regarding matters of tone.
Gary Bryson wrote on March 15, 2010 at 6:35 pm
On the matter of “Without God We Are Nothing”, Mitch, you’ve obviously left your sense of irony at home. “Threatening and insensitive”? Read the post.
Mitch
Comment Pending Approval. wrote on March 16, 2010 at 1:25 am
Hi Gary,
Not really – the point of my comment was that I don’t consider the phrase threatening and insensitive and do not think anyone else should either.
Regards,
Mitch
Sunday 14 March 2010
Atheist Con 2010
Well, I am back from Atheist Con. What a weekend.
I can't summarise everything in one blog post, but there are a few issues raised by the visit to Melbourne that I can't wait to start dealing with. As you can already see, I've become very interested in the idea of ridicule and criticism. Among other things raised at the conference:
- What constitutes a zealot, an extremist, or an evangelical atheist? Can they exist?
- What can we DO about the influence of religion on our secular society?
- Why are we moral creatures?
Just some of the things that the likes of PZ Meyers, Richard Dawkins, AC Grayling, Robyn Williams and a host of others talked about over the course of three days.
Just quickly - one of the most moving and amazing speeches I have ever seen delivered in my life came courtesy of Taslima Nasrin. I was not the only one in the audience brought close to tears and certainly only one pair of hands in the ubiquitous, minute-long standing ovation she recieved. If there is anyone out there unfamiliar with her story - I was one of them - I really must insist you read up on her. She is an inspiration for women, for men, and for free thinkers everywhere.
I must sign off and fill in my membership form for the Australian Secular Party now.
Adieu, heathens!
I can't summarise everything in one blog post, but there are a few issues raised by the visit to Melbourne that I can't wait to start dealing with. As you can already see, I've become very interested in the idea of ridicule and criticism. Among other things raised at the conference:
- What constitutes a zealot, an extremist, or an evangelical atheist? Can they exist?
- What can we DO about the influence of religion on our secular society?
- Why are we moral creatures?
Just some of the things that the likes of PZ Meyers, Richard Dawkins, AC Grayling, Robyn Williams and a host of others talked about over the course of three days.
Just quickly - one of the most moving and amazing speeches I have ever seen delivered in my life came courtesy of Taslima Nasrin. I was not the only one in the audience brought close to tears and certainly only one pair of hands in the ubiquitous, minute-long standing ovation she recieved. If there is anyone out there unfamiliar with her story - I was one of them - I really must insist you read up on her. She is an inspiration for women, for men, and for free thinkers everywhere.
I must sign off and fill in my membership form for the Australian Secular Party now.
Adieu, heathens!
Questions of Faith - Updated
I have recieved a response from Margaret Coffey and am very grateful that she took the time to do so. She may not be so much when she reads my reply back, but I believe what I said was important.
Or so I hope.
Or so I hope.
Wednesday 10 March 2010
Questions of Faith Blog
I have submitted a comment to the ABC's 'Questions of Faith' blog in the hope of defining the boundaries of what constitutes ridicule when it comes to a religious argument (see this post for the first mention of it). I think it's important to get a lot of feedback on this. On one hand I certainly don't want to be accused of heaping ridicule on something if it is not warranted. On the other hand, I know there must be situations in which it is warranted.
Margaret Coffey is the one I have directed my question to, and I hope we can have some back and forth. Or at the very least, one back.
Margaret Coffey is the one I have directed my question to, and I hope we can have some back and forth. Or at the very least, one back.
Rorschach - Take 3
Version 2 of the Rorschach after considered feedback from many commenters over at Facebook.
The feedback came from a wide variety of people, both religious and non. I quite like the idea of this metaphor, and if it isn't yet, I'm sure it will become something useful. One day.
Rorschach Version 2
Imagine the Rorschach Test represents the collective sum of human knowledge. In this ink blot is everything we know about the universe we live in. It is up to the individual who looks into it to find patterns and meaning.
A Christian looks into and sees god, and his son, and a holy spirit.
A Muslim sees Allah, which is the same thing as god.
Pantheists and Environmentalists see Everything That Is, and Gaia, and undeniable order.
Scientologists see the disembodied spirit of L. Ron Hubbard, and the everlasting galactic signature of Evil Lord Xenu.
On it goes - any given religion will find a different pattern, a different meaning, a different something from the blot.
It seems to be left to the skeptics - the atheists, the anti-theists, the non-believers - to recognise this pattern seeking behaviour, to call a Rorschach a Rorschach, and to wonder whether finding patterns in the ink blot is worthwhile. Objectively, the blot is indifferent to the patterns we find and it is important to us that we understand this. Not so that we may stare hopelessly into it and despair at the meaninglessness, but so that we might stop staring altogether, stop trying to find more and more reasons to justify the patterns we have already created, and ask ourselves why we are even looking at the Rorschach in the first place.
The feedback came from a wide variety of people, both religious and non. I quite like the idea of this metaphor, and if it isn't yet, I'm sure it will become something useful. One day.
Rorschach Version 2
Imagine the Rorschach Test represents the collective sum of human knowledge. In this ink blot is everything we know about the universe we live in. It is up to the individual who looks into it to find patterns and meaning.
A Christian looks into and sees god, and his son, and a holy spirit.
A Muslim sees Allah, which is the same thing as god.
Pantheists and Environmentalists see Everything That Is, and Gaia, and undeniable order.
Scientologists see the disembodied spirit of L. Ron Hubbard, and the everlasting galactic signature of Evil Lord Xenu.
On it goes - any given religion will find a different pattern, a different meaning, a different something from the blot.
It seems to be left to the skeptics - the atheists, the anti-theists, the non-believers - to recognise this pattern seeking behaviour, to call a Rorschach a Rorschach, and to wonder whether finding patterns in the ink blot is worthwhile. Objectively, the blot is indifferent to the patterns we find and it is important to us that we understand this. Not so that we may stare hopelessly into it and despair at the meaninglessness, but so that we might stop staring altogether, stop trying to find more and more reasons to justify the patterns we have already created, and ask ourselves why we are even looking at the Rorschach in the first place.
Tightening things up
I'm not going to continue with diatribes about Q&A. I've come to the decision that my blog posts are rambling, and nobody likes a rambling post. They will be much shorter from here on out and have a much tighter focus, even if it means multiple posts.
That is all.
That is all.
Monday 8 March 2010
Q&A - Prof. Dawkins must be oh so bored
Being touted as the world's most famous atheist must be tedious.
Tonight on ABC 1, Q&A counted amoung its guests Professor Richard Dawkins, Family First Leader Steve Fielding, Deputy Opposition Leader Julie Bishop, Australian of the Year 2010 Prof. Patrick McGorry, Member for Watson and Minister for Agriculture Tony Burke, and Rabbi Jacqueline Ninio of Emmanuel Synagogue. For all of the learned people on the panel - a handful of which have a say in how our country is run, might I add - the likes of whom you might expect would be familiar with answering questions and partaking of debate, I was most disappointed in the quality of debate that went on.
A few days ago I posted an entry called "God in the Suburbs" in which I lamented the severe level of ignorance being wielded like a sword and shield by any and all that saw fit to wade into the debate (whether atheist or religious). This ignorance is not purposeful on the part of those arguing, but it is a natural byproduct of believing one's self to be an expert on a topic that is far more intricate and complicated than first thought. Or indeed, ever thought.
Q&A tonight proved that our country's top minds are not immune to this ignorance. I want to go through some of the points thrown at Prof. Dawkins tonight and examine them just a little. I'm not inviting you to find these arguments ridiculous. I'm inviting you to read them in correct context and make up your own mind.
Never the 'twain shall meet.
The question "Can evolution and faith co-exist in the mind of a believer?" elicited a fairly basic starting point. The answer, of course, is obvious to anyone who is familiar with the subject: yes. The two are not mutually exclusive. One can easily believe that god or gods "jump started" the universe and stood aside while evolution took its course and led us to where we find ourselves today. This line of discussion, in turn, led to a berating of Steve Fielding for his belief that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old and that we were placed here by god almighty. A berating that, while I certainly can't disagree with, I felt ought to at least have been tempered by the fact that the man was willing to stand on faith alone and not rely on falsified evidence in favour of his position*.The upshot of it all was a generally arrived at consensus that 'Science and Religion have nothing to do with each other and do not need necessitate conflict'. This, as just about any atheist will tell you, is a gross oversimplification. A peacekeeping argument designed to move past a point.
If Religion and Science really do have nothing to do with each other, someone needs to tell the lobbyists that. Someone needs to tell those that banned all stem cell research in the United States - an action that led to the sacking of Australia's own Elizabeth Blackburn from the President's Council on Bioethics in 2004 when she spoke up in favour of the wondrous possibilities of human embryonic stem cell research (She later went on to win the Nobel Prize in Medicine). Someone, while we are at it, needs to tell the Vatican that condoms actually are effective in preventing the spread of STI's and AIDS, and that issuing edicts to the religious folk of Africa that condoms must not be used because they make trasmission more likely is doing to regional health what speeding bullets do to pane glass.
Someone again - obviously, one of the few not busy trying to accompish the first two tasks listed here - needs to suggest to the Islamic extremists, the really passionate believers, that our great scientific accomplishments - namely jumbo jets and skyscrapers - were never meant to be banged together the way a caveman might when trying to invent fire.
And yet tonight we listened to five different people - three of them politicians - try to explain to Prof. Dawkins that religion and science could be kept separate without the slightest bit of interference. One must ask - if this is true, why do we see so much opposition to scientific research? Why are people ready to believe that Mary McKillop can cure cancer so long after her own death?
This is not an argument that can be so easily dismissed. If you truly believe that science and religion are not at loggerheads, I hope this is a conclusion that you have arrived at after scrupulous study of the facts.
*Fielding did not try and refute evolution by natural selection while in the company of Prof. Dawkins, he simply stated 'you have your beliefs and I have mine' - a statement that, if not entirely nourishing, at least has the merit of being irrefutable and honest. If more people had a faith of the kind that Mr. Fielding has, the debate between theism and non would be solved much more easily as people would not rely on psuedo science and fraudulent evidence to 'strengthen' their positions. Can I also take this footnote as an opportunity to applaud him for declaring religion and science to be separate departments in a school setting, something that many hardline believers will not concede.
Respect me, you Nasty Atheist.
This one is easy. There is a myth circulating that goes something like this: "all beliefs are personal and deserve your respect. To speak against them is impolite, disrespectful and harmful. It will get you nowhere."
This sounds, I'm afraid to say, like the spiny response of someone who doesn't want to engage with the topic at all because they have either a) never had to argue it before, b) don't want to think about the implications of the argument or c) have enjoyed a lifetime of privellege in which people have lightstepped around their beliefs in the hope of avoiding all-too-easily provoked offence.
Josh Thomas posted the most eloquent refutation to this on his Twitter feed when he said "It would be a pretty boring #qanda episode when no one argued with people's views out of respect."
Beliefs need to be challenged - especially those posited with no substantiating evidence. Without this there would be no checks and balances, there would be no way to tell truth from dogma. When Prof. Dawkins offered a passage from the new testament as an example of abhorrently immoral behaviour (the story of Jesus dying on behalf of all man's sin) and loudly declared "you can keep it!", he was met with a stroppy, petulant tantrum from Tony Burke. "When you ridicule people's beliefs, it's divisive and nasty". Or something along those lines. A banal back and forth took place in which Prof. Dawkins tried to argue that he didn't ridicule the belief. It comes down to definition. If you're going to say that the fact that Dawkins disagrees with the idea that the new testament is an inspiring moral tale and is willing to say so to people that asked him about it, then I guess there's no defence. He did ridicule it. And if that is your definition of ridicule, then guess what? I'm okay with it.
Because the story he told really is morally abhorrent, it really is an example of how the bible is not a great teacher of morality, and it really does deserve to be ridiculed. One very rarely finds ridicule where the object is not first ridiculous. It would be hard, for example, to ridicule the idea of the mathematical equation 1 + 3 = 4 because it is irrefutably true. Ridiculous stories and beliefs will attract ridicule - they are not made to look ridiculous. They already look that way. Pointing this out can be defined as ridicule, yes. But it is the kind of ridicule that is unavoidable if you're going to disagree with the moral quality of the story.
For me, the interesting part is just how sensitive the religious are to this 'ridicule'. One would think that if their faith was strong enough, the point of view of a single man amoungst a panel of five would not be sufficient to hurt their feelings. Would I be accused of ridicule if I asked whether this was a sign of insecurity?
And note that I do not demand respect for holding this point of view. All I ask is my right to hold it without being called disrespectful.
Temporary Close.
Look, there is a lot to talk about. I never imagined when I started writing a blog that I would find so much to say and have such little time to do it in. It's nearly 1am again, I must go to work tomorrow, but I will be back. I still owe MasterMystery a response to Pantheism, I have about three more points of interest from Q&A to talk about, aghhh.
There just is not enough coffee in the world for this.
Tonight on ABC 1, Q&A counted amoung its guests Professor Richard Dawkins, Family First Leader Steve Fielding, Deputy Opposition Leader Julie Bishop, Australian of the Year 2010 Prof. Patrick McGorry, Member for Watson and Minister for Agriculture Tony Burke, and Rabbi Jacqueline Ninio of Emmanuel Synagogue. For all of the learned people on the panel - a handful of which have a say in how our country is run, might I add - the likes of whom you might expect would be familiar with answering questions and partaking of debate, I was most disappointed in the quality of debate that went on.
A few days ago I posted an entry called "God in the Suburbs" in which I lamented the severe level of ignorance being wielded like a sword and shield by any and all that saw fit to wade into the debate (whether atheist or religious). This ignorance is not purposeful on the part of those arguing, but it is a natural byproduct of believing one's self to be an expert on a topic that is far more intricate and complicated than first thought. Or indeed, ever thought.
Q&A tonight proved that our country's top minds are not immune to this ignorance. I want to go through some of the points thrown at Prof. Dawkins tonight and examine them just a little. I'm not inviting you to find these arguments ridiculous. I'm inviting you to read them in correct context and make up your own mind.
Never the 'twain shall meet.
The question "Can evolution and faith co-exist in the mind of a believer?" elicited a fairly basic starting point. The answer, of course, is obvious to anyone who is familiar with the subject: yes. The two are not mutually exclusive. One can easily believe that god or gods "jump started" the universe and stood aside while evolution took its course and led us to where we find ourselves today. This line of discussion, in turn, led to a berating of Steve Fielding for his belief that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old and that we were placed here by god almighty. A berating that, while I certainly can't disagree with, I felt ought to at least have been tempered by the fact that the man was willing to stand on faith alone and not rely on falsified evidence in favour of his position*.The upshot of it all was a generally arrived at consensus that 'Science and Religion have nothing to do with each other and do not need necessitate conflict'. This, as just about any atheist will tell you, is a gross oversimplification. A peacekeeping argument designed to move past a point.
If Religion and Science really do have nothing to do with each other, someone needs to tell the lobbyists that. Someone needs to tell those that banned all stem cell research in the United States - an action that led to the sacking of Australia's own Elizabeth Blackburn from the President's Council on Bioethics in 2004 when she spoke up in favour of the wondrous possibilities of human embryonic stem cell research (She later went on to win the Nobel Prize in Medicine). Someone, while we are at it, needs to tell the Vatican that condoms actually are effective in preventing the spread of STI's and AIDS, and that issuing edicts to the religious folk of Africa that condoms must not be used because they make trasmission more likely is doing to regional health what speeding bullets do to pane glass.
Someone again - obviously, one of the few not busy trying to accompish the first two tasks listed here - needs to suggest to the Islamic extremists, the really passionate believers, that our great scientific accomplishments - namely jumbo jets and skyscrapers - were never meant to be banged together the way a caveman might when trying to invent fire.
And yet tonight we listened to five different people - three of them politicians - try to explain to Prof. Dawkins that religion and science could be kept separate without the slightest bit of interference. One must ask - if this is true, why do we see so much opposition to scientific research? Why are people ready to believe that Mary McKillop can cure cancer so long after her own death?
This is not an argument that can be so easily dismissed. If you truly believe that science and religion are not at loggerheads, I hope this is a conclusion that you have arrived at after scrupulous study of the facts.
*Fielding did not try and refute evolution by natural selection while in the company of Prof. Dawkins, he simply stated 'you have your beliefs and I have mine' - a statement that, if not entirely nourishing, at least has the merit of being irrefutable and honest. If more people had a faith of the kind that Mr. Fielding has, the debate between theism and non would be solved much more easily as people would not rely on psuedo science and fraudulent evidence to 'strengthen' their positions. Can I also take this footnote as an opportunity to applaud him for declaring religion and science to be separate departments in a school setting, something that many hardline believers will not concede.
Respect me, you Nasty Atheist.
This one is easy. There is a myth circulating that goes something like this: "all beliefs are personal and deserve your respect. To speak against them is impolite, disrespectful and harmful. It will get you nowhere."
This sounds, I'm afraid to say, like the spiny response of someone who doesn't want to engage with the topic at all because they have either a) never had to argue it before, b) don't want to think about the implications of the argument or c) have enjoyed a lifetime of privellege in which people have lightstepped around their beliefs in the hope of avoiding all-too-easily provoked offence.
Josh Thomas posted the most eloquent refutation to this on his Twitter feed when he said "It would be a pretty boring #qanda episode when no one argued with people's views out of respect."
Beliefs need to be challenged - especially those posited with no substantiating evidence. Without this there would be no checks and balances, there would be no way to tell truth from dogma. When Prof. Dawkins offered a passage from the new testament as an example of abhorrently immoral behaviour (the story of Jesus dying on behalf of all man's sin) and loudly declared "you can keep it!", he was met with a stroppy, petulant tantrum from Tony Burke. "When you ridicule people's beliefs, it's divisive and nasty". Or something along those lines. A banal back and forth took place in which Prof. Dawkins tried to argue that he didn't ridicule the belief. It comes down to definition. If you're going to say that the fact that Dawkins disagrees with the idea that the new testament is an inspiring moral tale and is willing to say so to people that asked him about it, then I guess there's no defence. He did ridicule it. And if that is your definition of ridicule, then guess what? I'm okay with it.
Because the story he told really is morally abhorrent, it really is an example of how the bible is not a great teacher of morality, and it really does deserve to be ridiculed. One very rarely finds ridicule where the object is not first ridiculous. It would be hard, for example, to ridicule the idea of the mathematical equation 1 + 3 = 4 because it is irrefutably true. Ridiculous stories and beliefs will attract ridicule - they are not made to look ridiculous. They already look that way. Pointing this out can be defined as ridicule, yes. But it is the kind of ridicule that is unavoidable if you're going to disagree with the moral quality of the story.
For me, the interesting part is just how sensitive the religious are to this 'ridicule'. One would think that if their faith was strong enough, the point of view of a single man amoungst a panel of five would not be sufficient to hurt their feelings. Would I be accused of ridicule if I asked whether this was a sign of insecurity?
And note that I do not demand respect for holding this point of view. All I ask is my right to hold it without being called disrespectful.
Temporary Close.
Look, there is a lot to talk about. I never imagined when I started writing a blog that I would find so much to say and have such little time to do it in. It's nearly 1am again, I must go to work tomorrow, but I will be back. I still owe MasterMystery a response to Pantheism, I have about three more points of interest from Q&A to talk about, aghhh.
There just is not enough coffee in the world for this.
Sunday 7 March 2010
The Rorschach Test - Continued
Back to the Rorschach...
'The Rorschach Test' went live on facebook and recieved a fair amount of feedback. See the previous post to this one to get an idea of what I'm talking about. It's a metaphor, yeah. But nobody bothers coming up with a decent extended metaphor these days, and so damned if I'm going to let go of this one until it's been proven to me that it's ineffective or wrong!
This was a little analogy I came up with in my spare time, I must admit - but so far it's holding up. Of the facebook comments, the most prominent one was along these lines:
Isn't the point of a Rorschach test to use your personal experience to find meaning, and therefore know yourself better? Detaching from the experience and calling it nothing but an inkblot is not fulfilling.
Knowing yourself better is indeed more or less the point of a Rorschach, but what one finds in it is a reflection of one's own psychology. It speaks nothing to the objective truth of the matter. We may see a butterfly, or two people having tea -but there really is only an inkblot.
This is not to say it's meaningless. Someone like myself sees the same thing as everyone else - we can see god, we can see lamas and the memory of water or what have you - but we don't stop at any one of those as the truth. It's important to us to realise that it is, essentially, a blot of ink. Not so that we can stare glumly into it and despair at the nothingness, but so that we may STOP staring altogether and look elsewhere, concentrate on more important things, and find meaning in reality.
Elusive Pantheism...
I have been meaning to get back to the topic of Pantheism for days now, and I owe a big apology to Mastermystery for delaying. It is coming, I promise, but the comments left by my guest deserve nothing if not my complete attention and effort after the detail he put into his response. My work is already cut out for me. So watch this space...
'The Rorschach Test' went live on facebook and recieved a fair amount of feedback. See the previous post to this one to get an idea of what I'm talking about. It's a metaphor, yeah. But nobody bothers coming up with a decent extended metaphor these days, and so damned if I'm going to let go of this one until it's been proven to me that it's ineffective or wrong!
This was a little analogy I came up with in my spare time, I must admit - but so far it's holding up. Of the facebook comments, the most prominent one was along these lines:
Isn't the point of a Rorschach test to use your personal experience to find meaning, and therefore know yourself better? Detaching from the experience and calling it nothing but an inkblot is not fulfilling.
Knowing yourself better is indeed more or less the point of a Rorschach, but what one finds in it is a reflection of one's own psychology. It speaks nothing to the objective truth of the matter. We may see a butterfly, or two people having tea -but there really is only an inkblot.
This is not to say it's meaningless. Someone like myself sees the same thing as everyone else - we can see god, we can see lamas and the memory of water or what have you - but we don't stop at any one of those as the truth. It's important to us to realise that it is, essentially, a blot of ink. Not so that we can stare glumly into it and despair at the nothingness, but so that we may STOP staring altogether and look elsewhere, concentrate on more important things, and find meaning in reality.
Elusive Pantheism...
I have been meaning to get back to the topic of Pantheism for days now, and I owe a big apology to Mastermystery for delaying. It is coming, I promise, but the comments left by my guest deserve nothing if not my complete attention and effort after the detail he put into his response. My work is already cut out for me. So watch this space...
Saturday 6 March 2010
The Rorschach Test.
Very quickly because it's 12:50am on Sunday.
I've been thinking of it like this.
The universe is basically one big Rorschach Test - a giant inkblot that people may read into any meaning they wish. Christians find god and a holy spirit, Muslims find allah (the same thing), Deists find an incredible and uncoincidental order and beauty to everything. Pick any faith and you'll find a brand new* interpretation of this giant inkblot.
It seems to me that an Atheist is the only one who sits back and says, "You know we're looking at a Rorschach Test, right?"
*By 'band new', I actually mean 'contrived from those that came nearly immediately before it'.
I've been thinking of it like this.
The universe is basically one big Rorschach Test - a giant inkblot that people may read into any meaning they wish. Christians find god and a holy spirit, Muslims find allah (the same thing), Deists find an incredible and uncoincidental order and beauty to everything. Pick any faith and you'll find a brand new* interpretation of this giant inkblot.
Pictured: The Universe
It seems to me that an Atheist is the only one who sits back and says, "You know we're looking at a Rorschach Test, right?"
*By 'band new', I actually mean 'contrived from those that came nearly immediately before it'.
Thursday 4 March 2010
Pantheism: It's like Atheism by James Cameron.
New age and quasi religions are generally harmless enough. Let's get that out of the way right now. There's nothing you're about to read that is going to threaten your existence or start gently tapping on your internal alarm bells. People have the urge to worship, I get it - whether that's god, or the beauty of nature, or a living embodiment of a reincarnated Lama, or herds of cattle or whatever. Most people want something to bow down to, this is a programmed part of our biology (one that I seem to have missed out on altogether, to my relief). In pursuit of fulfilling that urge, they'll find something that fits their worldview and run with it. Buddhism suits a lot of agnostic folk. Deism was a big one through the ages - the idea that there is some order to the universe that is to be respected and worshipped, if not in the form of a god.
If I was forced to pick a problem with it - something that would require less than a herculean effort - it would be that any kind of mysticism invariably ends up sounding like it was issued from the mouth of a hippie in his prime (read: shitfaced). I'd like to introduce you to a form of non-religious religion that's been steadily growing in popularity since Richard Dawkins mentioned it in passing in The God Delusion. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Pantheism.
Or, as I've just this second taken to calling it, Avatarism.
Basically, these are the folk who have rejected the idea of a personal god - but only so that they can make room for a no-holds-barred worship of nature and the cosmos. So yeah, they've removed the supernatural elements. And replaced them with, lets call them, ultranatural elements.
I'm going to cut and paste the belief statement from the World Pantheist Movement website to give you all an idea of what it's like. You never know, you might really like what you read. I'm going to run a translation service on some of the more wordy ones, because I'm that nice.
Look, like I said, it'll harm nobody. Which is more than can be said about the theologies I tend to rage about.
I just find it funny that people are willing to let go of god to the extent that they can immediately begin filling in all the time they would otherwise have spent praying 'meditating', 'emoting' and trying to discover that weird 'single kind of substance, energy/matter, that is a fundamental creative force" or whatever. The need to worship baffles and intrigues me. There is something within us that demands that we place ourselves at the bottom of the ladder. If not at the feet of a god, we are subservient to nature.
I mistrust this impulse. It's rife for abuse. We can safeguard it by setting up the boundaries that Pantheism has obviously taken pains to define. I just don't understand the need for it in the first place.
If any visitor to this blog has an opinion on this, please comment. Obviously I haven't given a fair and balanced account of Pantheism here - I'm not after a lesson in their deepest philosophies. They are simple enough. What I really want to know is this: You've accepted that there's no supernatural. Why then existentialise the natural?
*reproduced according to the rules of the website.
If I was forced to pick a problem with it - something that would require less than a herculean effort - it would be that any kind of mysticism invariably ends up sounding like it was issued from the mouth of a hippie in his prime (read: shitfaced). I'd like to introduce you to a form of non-religious religion that's been steadily growing in popularity since Richard Dawkins mentioned it in passing in The God Delusion. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Pantheism.
Or, as I've just this second taken to calling it, Avatarism.
Basically, these are the folk who have rejected the idea of a personal god - but only so that they can make room for a no-holds-barred worship of nature and the cosmos. So yeah, they've removed the supernatural elements. And replaced them with, lets call them, ultranatural elements.
I'm going to cut and paste the belief statement from the World Pantheist Movement website to give you all an idea of what it's like. You never know, you might really like what you read. I'm going to run a translation service on some of the more wordy ones, because I'm that nice.
The belief statement of the WPM* | |
| 1. We revere and celebrate the Universe as the totality of being, past, present and future. It is self-organizing, ever-evolving and inexhaustibly diverse. Its overwhelming power, beauty and fundamental mystery compel the deepest human reverence and wonder. The universe is pretty damn huge and complicated and you should be impressed. | |
| 2. All matter, energy, and life are an interconnected unity of which we are an inseparable part. We rejoice in our existence and seek to participate ever more deeply in this unity through knowledge, celebration, meditation, empathy, love, ethical action and art. Everything is connected, man. And we can connect with it if we just meditate and celebrate and love each other! | |
| 3. We are an integral part of Nature, which we should cherish, revere and preserve in all its magnificent beauty and diversity. We should strive to live in harmony with Nature locally and globally. We acknowledge the inherent value of all life, human and non-human, and strive to treat all living beings with compassion and respect. Please do not antagonise the animals. They will not thank you for it. Nor will the trees. | |
| 4. All humans are equal centers of awareness of the Universe and nature, and all deserve a life of equal dignity and mutual respect. To this end we support and work towards freedom, democracy, justice, and non-discrimination, and a world community based on peace, sustainable ways of life, full respect for human rights and an end to poverty. Everyone is potentially a pantheist, so we won't kill or discriminate against anyone. | |
| 5. There is a single kind of substance, energy/matter, which is vibrant and infinitely creative in all its forms. Body and mind are indivisibly united. Uh...you can't live without a brain. | |
| 6. We see death as the return to nature of our elements, and the end of our existence as individuals. The forms of "afterlife" available to humans are natural ones, in the natural world. Our actions, our ideas and memories of us live on, according to what we do in our lives. Our genes live on in our families, and our elements are endlessly recycled in nature. Decomposition is like composting, which we believe in quite strongly. | |
| 7. We honor reality, and keep our minds open to the evidence of the senses and of science's unending quest for deeper understanding. These are our best means of coming to know the Universe, and on them we base our aesthetic and religious feelings about reality. Science can forever provide us with more concepts to which we may attach the words 'unity', 'reverence' and 'harmony'. | |
| 8. Every individual has direct access through perception, emotion and meditation to ultimate reality, which is the Universe and Nature. There is no need for mediation by priests, gurus or revealed scriptures. Work it out yourself using common sense and your own experiences. Though we must insist that you also meditate. | |
| 9. We uphold the separation of religion and state, and the universal human right of freedom of religion. We recognize the freedom of all pantheists to express and celebrate their beliefs, as individuals or in groups, in any non-harmful ritual, symbol or vocabulary that is meaningful to them. If you're going to be a Pantheist, for revered nature's sake, please don't force anyone else to be one. |
Look, like I said, it'll harm nobody. Which is more than can be said about the theologies I tend to rage about.
I just find it funny that people are willing to let go of god to the extent that they can immediately begin filling in all the time they would otherwise have spent praying 'meditating', 'emoting' and trying to discover that weird 'single kind of substance, energy/matter, that is a fundamental creative force" or whatever. The need to worship baffles and intrigues me. There is something within us that demands that we place ourselves at the bottom of the ladder. If not at the feet of a god, we are subservient to nature.
I mistrust this impulse. It's rife for abuse. We can safeguard it by setting up the boundaries that Pantheism has obviously taken pains to define. I just don't understand the need for it in the first place.
If any visitor to this blog has an opinion on this, please comment. Obviously I haven't given a fair and balanced account of Pantheism here - I'm not after a lesson in their deepest philosophies. They are simple enough. What I really want to know is this: You've accepted that there's no supernatural. Why then existentialise the natural?
*reproduced according to the rules of the website.
Back to the video games...
It's no longer 1:30am, so I'm back.
I was discussing this article from The Age about the submissions taken to review an R18+ classification for video games in Australia. In it, the Australian Christian Lobby threw a fit because the number of pro-R18+ responses vastly outweighed the number of negative-18+ submissions.
The Christian lobby group used its submission to argue that there is good reason for stricter rules to apply to interactive games than films and DVDs.
See, this is all well and good. Except at the moment, there are not stricter rules. There are no rules at all, you see - anything that is only suitable for legal adults is banned outright. We are the only western nation that does this - and the same applies to books and movies (and very soon, the internet). I still am yet to hear a good explanation as to why.
Censorship is a totalitarian idea. I know that 'totalitarian' is one of those words that tends to make people roll their eyes ('He's talking about totalitarianism? They're just video games for christ's sake!), but there's no other description for it. When the government steps in to control what is and is not appropriate for you to watch, play or read, you surrender your right to that control. You may not care about video games per se, but what happens when it's something else in the sights of censorship? When they come to take away your DVDs because theyre too violent, or your zines because they're too politically incorrect, or your bibles because they're too ... well, not much better than porn? Then youre stuck, because you already let them take the video games. And the internet.
Nobody has answered this to my satisfaction when it comes to the censorship debate:
I live in a household that contains three adults: 24 years old each, two male, one female. We have a wide spread of political and philosophical viewpoints. None of us are offended by graphic video game violence, swearing or sexual content.
For what reason are we banned from owning content that has been rated as appropriate for us? Why is it forbidden us?
We can only hope that this does not remain the case for long.
I was discussing this article from The Age about the submissions taken to review an R18+ classification for video games in Australia. In it, the Australian Christian Lobby threw a fit because the number of pro-R18+ responses vastly outweighed the number of negative-18+ submissions.
The Christian lobby group used its submission to argue that there is good reason for stricter rules to apply to interactive games than films and DVDs.
See, this is all well and good. Except at the moment, there are not stricter rules. There are no rules at all, you see - anything that is only suitable for legal adults is banned outright. We are the only western nation that does this - and the same applies to books and movies (and very soon, the internet). I still am yet to hear a good explanation as to why.
Censorship is a totalitarian idea. I know that 'totalitarian' is one of those words that tends to make people roll their eyes ('He's talking about totalitarianism? They're just video games for christ's sake!), but there's no other description for it. When the government steps in to control what is and is not appropriate for you to watch, play or read, you surrender your right to that control. You may not care about video games per se, but what happens when it's something else in the sights of censorship? When they come to take away your DVDs because theyre too violent, or your zines because they're too politically incorrect, or your bibles because they're too ... well, not much better than porn? Then youre stuck, because you already let them take the video games. And the internet.
Nobody has answered this to my satisfaction when it comes to the censorship debate:
I live in a household that contains three adults: 24 years old each, two male, one female. We have a wide spread of political and philosophical viewpoints. None of us are offended by graphic video game violence, swearing or sexual content.
For what reason are we banned from owning content that has been rated as appropriate for us? Why is it forbidden us?
We can only hope that this does not remain the case for long.
Wednesday 3 March 2010
God hates video games
Linked from Theage.com.au:
An article about how the nasty Attorney-General's department seemed to call for submissions from people who had some experience on the subject. The Australian Christian Lobby, on discovering that their pro-censorship angle was outnumbered by lots-to-not-many on this issue, offered up this tidbit:
"The group warned against using the volume of responses on either side of the argument as a reflection of public attitudes"
Can someone remind me to bring this up in the next election? No matter who wins, we can point out that a majority of responses in favour of one party doesn't reflect public attitudes. I hardly think that democracy is concerned with representing the interests of a majority! How absurd!
I'll come back to this article when it isn't 1:30am. Goodnight all.
An article about how the nasty Attorney-General's department seemed to call for submissions from people who had some experience on the subject. The Australian Christian Lobby, on discovering that their pro-censorship angle was outnumbered by lots-to-not-many on this issue, offered up this tidbit:
"The group warned against using the volume of responses on either side of the argument as a reflection of public attitudes"
Can someone remind me to bring this up in the next election? No matter who wins, we can point out that a majority of responses in favour of one party doesn't reflect public attitudes. I hardly think that democracy is concerned with representing the interests of a majority! How absurd!
I'll come back to this article when it isn't 1:30am. Goodnight all.
God in the Suburbs
A discussion going on over at Ninemsn - bizarrely, in the money section - has been illuminating to say the least.
The initial blog post - about some Seventh Day Adventists or other door-knocking religious folk - interrupting a non-believer while she tried to prepare dinner for her family led to a debate about the prevalence of god in small communities. Her basic point was that religion seemed to be dying out, and that she was part of it, and that the door knockers' place in the world was beginning to dwindle. The question asked at the end of the blog post went thusly:
"Do you live in an area where religion has a strong presence? Or are your churches empty? Do you think communities need religion to thrive? Share your thoughts below."
Open ended, I think you'll agree. When you ask a question this broad on this topic, your responses are going to be equally as broad. And hoo-boy, were they broad. Across approximately 200 comments at time of posting, the gamut of religious and non-religious responses were gone through. I took part quite actively myself. Some of the responses to my posts were encouraging, others were hair-pullingly frustrating.
I encourage you to go and have a look at them. I was slightly surprised to see that the replies were disproportionately faithful. I ran this through a little filter in my head, however, that accounted for the fact that this was ninemsn and it made a little more sense.
Putting aside all atheism versus religion, though, there was one common problem with nearly every single post on the site. Religion is a topic that absolutely everyone in the world feels they are an expert on. So when a blogger makes an innocent post about being bothered at dinner by door knockers, one responder saw fit to chastise her for talking about such a trivial thing while there was so much more that could be talked about. Including, to quote, 'wars, malnutrition and diseases'. I suppose he is right. Then again, this is in the 'your suburb' section of the website. So unless there are wars, malnutrition or diseases rife in the neighbourhood, I'm willing to cut the writer a little slack. But I have digressed. The point is that nearly every comment, be it pro or anti religion, suffered from the same problem - a willingness to debate the topic, but an unwillingness to know even the slightest thing about the topic.
A list of the topics trotted out by commenters that even a cursory google search will dispel:
- Evolution is only a theory.
- Atheism is just as dogmatic and fundamentalist as any religion
- Science is arrogant and can't deal with real human issues
- Without religion there can be no morality
- Religious folk are more generous than non.
- Christianity is being picked on
- One sect/offshoot of a religion can be somehow more unfeasible than another
- Science and Religion are not in opposition
- There was a big bang and, like a whirlwind through a junkyard producing a jumbo jet, life sprang into existence by chance
- Everyone would believe in god if only they took the time to read the bible/torah/quo'ran
- Religion itself is just a metaphor/fanciful way of telling good moral lessons
- Organised religion is giving all of religion a bad name/individuals don't share the burden of the institution
And the biggest sin of all - Godwin's law came rapidly to fruition. Secular Humanism was referred to as being the basis of Hitler's final solution. At which point, as we all know, the argument was immediately lost.
These are all topics worth talking about and getting cleared up early on. They may not be as cut and dry as I make out - I am bound to be biased after all - but you've got to work past this stuff, the novice stuff, before you really start to get to the crux of the arguments. Over the next few weeks I'll come back to fill these in.
For now, if you're interested, head on over and read through some of the comments on the ninemsn blog. Or leave one here. All efforts are made to answer questions and challenges given. And let's face it - nobody knows this place exists, so it won't be a problem.
Update: The author of the blog post, Rosalind Scutt, has previously written glowing pieces about Feng Shui. I am utterly confused as to her skeptic status now. Dammit, why can't people be consistent?
The initial blog post - about some Seventh Day Adventists or other door-knocking religious folk - interrupting a non-believer while she tried to prepare dinner for her family led to a debate about the prevalence of god in small communities. Her basic point was that religion seemed to be dying out, and that she was part of it, and that the door knockers' place in the world was beginning to dwindle. The question asked at the end of the blog post went thusly:
"Do you live in an area where religion has a strong presence? Or are your churches empty? Do you think communities need religion to thrive? Share your thoughts below."
Open ended, I think you'll agree. When you ask a question this broad on this topic, your responses are going to be equally as broad. And hoo-boy, were they broad. Across approximately 200 comments at time of posting, the gamut of religious and non-religious responses were gone through. I took part quite actively myself. Some of the responses to my posts were encouraging, others were hair-pullingly frustrating.
I encourage you to go and have a look at them. I was slightly surprised to see that the replies were disproportionately faithful. I ran this through a little filter in my head, however, that accounted for the fact that this was ninemsn and it made a little more sense.
Putting aside all atheism versus religion, though, there was one common problem with nearly every single post on the site. Religion is a topic that absolutely everyone in the world feels they are an expert on. So when a blogger makes an innocent post about being bothered at dinner by door knockers, one responder saw fit to chastise her for talking about such a trivial thing while there was so much more that could be talked about. Including, to quote, 'wars, malnutrition and diseases'. I suppose he is right. Then again, this is in the 'your suburb' section of the website. So unless there are wars, malnutrition or diseases rife in the neighbourhood, I'm willing to cut the writer a little slack. But I have digressed. The point is that nearly every comment, be it pro or anti religion, suffered from the same problem - a willingness to debate the topic, but an unwillingness to know even the slightest thing about the topic.
A list of the topics trotted out by commenters that even a cursory google search will dispel:
- Evolution is only a theory.
- Atheism is just as dogmatic and fundamentalist as any religion
- Science is arrogant and can't deal with real human issues
- Without religion there can be no morality
- Religious folk are more generous than non.
- Christianity is being picked on
- One sect/offshoot of a religion can be somehow more unfeasible than another
- Science and Religion are not in opposition
- There was a big bang and, like a whirlwind through a junkyard producing a jumbo jet, life sprang into existence by chance
- Everyone would believe in god if only they took the time to read the bible/torah/quo'ran
- Religion itself is just a metaphor/fanciful way of telling good moral lessons
- Organised religion is giving all of religion a bad name/individuals don't share the burden of the institution
And the biggest sin of all - Godwin's law came rapidly to fruition. Secular Humanism was referred to as being the basis of Hitler's final solution. At which point, as we all know, the argument was immediately lost.
These are all topics worth talking about and getting cleared up early on. They may not be as cut and dry as I make out - I am bound to be biased after all - but you've got to work past this stuff, the novice stuff, before you really start to get to the crux of the arguments. Over the next few weeks I'll come back to fill these in.
For now, if you're interested, head on over and read through some of the comments on the ninemsn blog. Or leave one here. All efforts are made to answer questions and challenges given. And let's face it - nobody knows this place exists, so it won't be a problem.
Update: The author of the blog post, Rosalind Scutt, has previously written glowing pieces about Feng Shui. I am utterly confused as to her skeptic status now. Dammit, why can't people be consistent?
God in the Suburbs
A discussion going on over at Ninemsn - bizarrely, in the money section - has been illuminating to say the least.
The initial blog post - about some Seventh Day Adventists or other door-knocking religious folk - interrupting a non-believer while she tried to prepare dinner for her family led to a debate about the prevalence of god in small communities. Her basic point was that religion seemed to be dying out, and that she was part of it, and that the door knockers' place in the world was beginning to dwindle. The question asked at the end of the blog post went thusly:
"Do you live in an area where religion has a strong presence? Or are your churches empty? Do you think communities need religion to thrive? Share your thoughts below."
Open ended, I think you'll agree. When you ask a question this broad on this topic, your responses are going to be equally as broad. And hoo-boy, were they broad. Across approximately 200 comments at time of posting, the gamut of religious and non-religious responses were gone through. I took part quite actively myself. Some of the responses to my posts were encouraging, others were hair-pullingly frustrating.
I encourage you to go and have a look at them. I was slightly surprised to see that the replies were disproportionately faithful. I ran this through a little filter in my head, however, that accounted for the fact that this was ninemsn and it made a little more sense.
Putting aside all atheism versus religion, though, there was one common problem with nearly every single post on the site. Religion is a topic that absolutely everyone in the world feels they are an expert on. So when a blogger makes an innocent post about being bothered at dinner by door knockers, one responder saw fit to chastise her for talking about such a trivial thing while there was so much more that could be talked about. Including, to quote, 'wars, malnutrition and diseases'. I suppose he is right. Then again, this is in the 'your suburb' section of the website. So unless there are wars, malnutrition or diseases rife in the neighbourhood, I'm willing to cut the writer a little slack. But I have digressed. The point is that nearly every comment, be it pro or anti religion, suffered from the same problem - a willingness to debate the topic, but an unwillingness to know even the slightest thing about the topic.
A list of the topics trotted out by commenters that even a cursory google search will dispel:
- Evolution is only a theory.
- Atheism is just as dogmatic and fundamentalist as any religion
- Science is arrogant and can't deal with real human issues
- Without religion there can be no morality
- Religious folk are more generous than non.
- Christianity is being picked on
- One sect/offshoot of a religion can be somehow more unfeasible than another
- Science and Religion are not in opposition
- There was a big bang and, like a whirlwind through a junkyard producing a jumbo jet, life sprang into existence by chance
- Everyone would believe in god if only they took the time to read the bible/torah/quo'ran
- Religion itself is just a metaphor/fanciful way of telling good moral lessons
- Organised religion is giving all of religion a bad name/individuals don't share the burden of the institution
And the biggest sin of all - Godwin's law came rapidly to fruition. Secular Humanism was referred to as being the basis of Hitler's final solution. At which point, as we all know, the argument was immediately lost.
These are all topics worth talking about and getting cleared up early on. They may not be as cut and dry as I make out - I am bound to be biased after all - but you've got to work past this stuff, the novice stuff, before you really start to get to the crux of the arguments. Over the next few weeks I'll come back to fill these in.
For now, if you're interested, head on over and read through some of the comments on the ninemsn blog. Or leave one here. All efforts are made to answer questions and challenges given. And let's face it - nobody knows this place exists, so it won't be a problem.
The initial blog post - about some Seventh Day Adventists or other door-knocking religious folk - interrupting a non-believer while she tried to prepare dinner for her family led to a debate about the prevalence of god in small communities. Her basic point was that religion seemed to be dying out, and that she was part of it, and that the door knockers' place in the world was beginning to dwindle. The question asked at the end of the blog post went thusly:
"Do you live in an area where religion has a strong presence? Or are your churches empty? Do you think communities need religion to thrive? Share your thoughts below."
Open ended, I think you'll agree. When you ask a question this broad on this topic, your responses are going to be equally as broad. And hoo-boy, were they broad. Across approximately 200 comments at time of posting, the gamut of religious and non-religious responses were gone through. I took part quite actively myself. Some of the responses to my posts were encouraging, others were hair-pullingly frustrating.
I encourage you to go and have a look at them. I was slightly surprised to see that the replies were disproportionately faithful. I ran this through a little filter in my head, however, that accounted for the fact that this was ninemsn and it made a little more sense.
Putting aside all atheism versus religion, though, there was one common problem with nearly every single post on the site. Religion is a topic that absolutely everyone in the world feels they are an expert on. So when a blogger makes an innocent post about being bothered at dinner by door knockers, one responder saw fit to chastise her for talking about such a trivial thing while there was so much more that could be talked about. Including, to quote, 'wars, malnutrition and diseases'. I suppose he is right. Then again, this is in the 'your suburb' section of the website. So unless there are wars, malnutrition or diseases rife in the neighbourhood, I'm willing to cut the writer a little slack. But I have digressed. The point is that nearly every comment, be it pro or anti religion, suffered from the same problem - a willingness to debate the topic, but an unwillingness to know even the slightest thing about the topic.
A list of the topics trotted out by commenters that even a cursory google search will dispel:
- Evolution is only a theory.
- Atheism is just as dogmatic and fundamentalist as any religion
- Science is arrogant and can't deal with real human issues
- Without religion there can be no morality
- Religious folk are more generous than non.
- Christianity is being picked on
- One sect/offshoot of a religion can be somehow more unfeasible than another
- Science and Religion are not in opposition
- There was a big bang and, like a whirlwind through a junkyard producing a jumbo jet, life sprang into existence by chance
- Everyone would believe in god if only they took the time to read the bible/torah/quo'ran
- Religion itself is just a metaphor/fanciful way of telling good moral lessons
- Organised religion is giving all of religion a bad name/individuals don't share the burden of the institution
And the biggest sin of all - Godwin's law came rapidly to fruition. Secular Humanism was referred to as being the basis of Hitler's final solution. At which point, as we all know, the argument was immediately lost.
These are all topics worth talking about and getting cleared up early on. They may not be as cut and dry as I make out - I am bound to be biased after all - but you've got to work past this stuff, the novice stuff, before you really start to get to the crux of the arguments. Over the next few weeks I'll come back to fill these in.
For now, if you're interested, head on over and read through some of the comments on the ninemsn blog. Or leave one here. All efforts are made to answer questions and challenges given. And let's face it - nobody knows this place exists, so it won't be a problem.
A waste of good champagne.
Welcome, one and all, to the inaugural post. With these words, I christen this blog "The Big A Word".
There's nowhere better than the very first post to get to the guts of what this blog will focus on. It's a small blog, a local kind of thing, but there ought to be something here that just about anyone can relate to. I'm based in Newcastle, NSW so a lot of what's said will likely relate to the local area. One thing that won't be in short supply, of course, is opinion. This is the internet after all.
So, what's the Big A Word, then?
Atheism.
Or atheist, if you're using it in a titular way.
It's a big topic, there's a lot of information on the internet about it already, and this place will be just another repository for comment, articles and argument. This being the introductory post, there'll be nothing to differentiate it from your average blog about religion. But shortly, when actual content goes up, we'll hopefully see something interesting emerge. Stay tuned.
There's nowhere better than the very first post to get to the guts of what this blog will focus on. It's a small blog, a local kind of thing, but there ought to be something here that just about anyone can relate to. I'm based in Newcastle, NSW so a lot of what's said will likely relate to the local area. One thing that won't be in short supply, of course, is opinion. This is the internet after all.
So, what's the Big A Word, then?
Atheism.
Or atheist, if you're using it in a titular way.
It's a big topic, there's a lot of information on the internet about it already, and this place will be just another repository for comment, articles and argument. This being the introductory post, there'll be nothing to differentiate it from your average blog about religion. But shortly, when actual content goes up, we'll hopefully see something interesting emerge. Stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)