I may have to learn the words to "O Canada" if Dan Gardner is representative of that great nation. His recent article is marvelous.
So I thought this is an opportune moment to say I think all three of these faiths -- these mighty institutions, these esteemed philosophies, these ancient and honoured traditions -- are ridiculous quackery. Parted seas. Walking corpses. Nocturnal visits to Heaven. For goodness sake, people, the talking wolf in Little Red Riding Hood is more plausible.
Preach it, brother. Referring to the habit of some to who see these "New Atheists" as equivalent to the fanatics of religion, he says:
This frames the debate in a pleasingly symmetrical way. Over on that side are the insane religious fanatics who fly jets into skyscrapers and march around with signs saying "God Hates Fags." Over there are fanatical atheists. Between the two extremes are sensible moderates who take the Goldilocks approach to faith and reason. Not too hot. Not too cold. Lukewarm, please, keep it lukewarm.
He should have continued one sentence: "Over there are fanatical atheists … who write books and talk to people." It's good to see, though, that there are others who also see through the prim, squeaky in-betweeners who take pride in their weak-kneed mediocrity and whimper about "funadamentalist atheists", equating suicide bombers for god with people who simply refuse to defer to religious poppycock.
Bravo, Mr Gardner.
- Log in to post comments
...and in the Ottawa Citizen, no less. I didn't know anyone there still had a brain.
The article is great. It's nice to read the uncompromising reasonable approach from a non-scientific journalist. I also think Ringo sucks.
I loved the part about the football games - it drives me nuts when the winning team says "God was with us". Isn't that the ultimate form of game-fixing?
PZ, I don't know how much you would like our national anthem, which has a line that goes "God keep our land glorious and free"...
I loved the part about the football games - it drives me nuts when the winning team says "God was with us". Isn't that the ultimate form of game-fixing?
PZ, I don't know how much you would like our national anthem, which has a line that goes "God keep our land glorious and free"...
Revelations 3:16
"So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."
This is my favorite Bible quote. It reminds me everyday that even a little faith in god is as good as none, so I might as well not have any faith at all. I suppose I could have a little faith, feel intelectually dishonest, and still be damned to hell, but who need that. Thanks be to John for proding a younger me further towards atheism (and thanks be to catholic school for teaching me this quote).
OT
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/05/the_republicans.html
So who are the Republicans at Panda's Thumb who refuse to allow comments on the "politically sensitive" topic of rampant Republican idiocy?
Yes, Mr Gardner. Unfortunately, here is a truly mutant variant on the Oh, Canada theme. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1479-6988.2006.00041… This is as bad as it can get. We don't need no stinking evidence. Oh Canada OHHH!
"Over there are fanatical atheists ... who write books and talk to people."
I think the version we're more likely to see from theists these days is "Over there are fanatical atheists ... who murder millions in ideological and/or eugenicist purges."
Yes, Mr Gardner. Unfortunately, here is a truly mutant variant on the Oh, Canada theme. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1479-6988.2006.00041… This is as bad as it can get. We don't need no stinking evidence. Oh, Canada - OHHH!
He was better than Paul. Had the best solo career, too.
Awesome article, though. I wish I could see something like that in an American paper.
He was better than Paul. Had the best solo career, too.
Awesome article, though. I wish I could see something like that in an American paper.
Yes, Mr Gardner. Unfortunately, here is a truly mutant variant on the Oh, Canada theme. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1479-6988.2006.00041… This is as bad as it can get. We don't need no stinking evidence. Oh, Canada - OHHH!
Oh, I don't even know most of the words to the US national anthem, so I imagine I could just wing it and make stuff up.
"Something about a queeeeen,
mumble mumble vinegar and pouteeeene!
There's a lot of snow about,
the mounties always tell the trut'"
And then I repeat it in pidgin French. Close enough, eh?
Gardner is his own best example of why the above approach works:
[...]
Btw, this sounds nice, write me up too:
I'm curious of one thing.
What do you call atheists like myself?
I write articles, and I talk to people. Most of what I have written in recent times has been on a Christian discussion forum, TheologyWeb. My "atheism" tag is displayed there proudly. I take up all kinds of topics, including defence of unbelief and my reasons for thinking that God does not exist. I know of at least one writer there who used to be a fairly fundamentalist Christian and creationist, and who has become an atheist himself as a direct result.
But I'm also pretty genial and easy going. I've got my views, and I not in any doubt about them. I think the Christians are incorrect. I think my reasons are good ones, and I'm happy to share them. But I'm relaxed about people who are not persuaded.
I'm also criticial of my fellow atheists from time to time; I've disagreed with PZ on some points, for example, despite our being in violent agreement on most other things.
From my perspective, disagreement is not because of concerns with "style" but of accuracy. I mostly ignore people who are just unpleasant; where I engage it is because I have a point of real disagreement. For example, I recently disagreed on the nature of theistic evolution. It's not a redefinition of evolution or of science; but a redefinition of religion or of God.
I'm raising this question here, because I think the debates between atheists or unbelievers more generally that has been raging around the blogs is often cast in terms that are unnecessarily aggressive and insulting of one another. This occurs from both sides.
I've been writing on matters relating to this for a long times; in talk.origins and alt.atheism; then in TheologyWeb; and just getting started on blogs.
I didn't know No Pants Day qualified as a major religious holiday... What else was on last Friday?
I just find it baffling that all it takes to be an extremist of the atheist realm is to be unapologetic or unimpressed with religion entirely.
All it takes is... "I don't like religion. I find it foolish." BAM! You're an extremist/fundamentalist.
I haven't a clue what you're talking about. All the worst mass murderers in history are Mormon.
@GWW: Do you know how to read?
"Comments to all of this may be left at EvolutionBlog."
So I guess Jason Rosenhouse is part of a vast right-wing conspiracy to have comments posted at his own blog?
More conflation. Religious jargon is a one-way street and should not be applied to non-theism. It is tantamount to using "staccato" and "legato" to talk about yard work.
@GWW: Do you know how to read? "Comments to all of this may be left at EvolutionBlog."
Yes -- so certain folks at PT aren't offended by the presence of those nasty partisan comments on the PT website.
My point, exactly. Thank you.
And then I repeat it in pidgin French. Close enough, eh?
Okay. Who told him that? Which one of you loose-lipped beaver-lovin' beer-guzzlin' degenerates told him the words to the secret anthem, huh?
I mean sure, I know he's from Minnesota. You were probably thrown off by the whole 'yes, I can drive on more than two centimetres of snow' thing. But it still doesn't count. By that standard, we'd have to let people from North Dakota in, too...
Well, okay. We'd have to let in all three of them who know what a centimetre is. The point is, we can't have that.
Oh, okay. Yeah, yeah, he knows the words. That's the deal.
PZ, our politburo asked me to pass along that you're in. It used to be a bit more arduous than this, but we dropped the tradition of requiring inductees to sing Bryan Adams 'Summer of '69' a capella in 1995 to commemorate the passing John Peters Humphrey. I believe Larry M. will be sending you a map providing the secret locations of Tim Hortons outlets on your side of the border. Welcome, and take er' easy, eh.
hmmm - the only point that I would use to refer to Dawkins as "extremist" is the child-abuse thing. I agree that in a perfect world, nobody would be exposed to religion until they were at least at the age for which they can be legally executed, or drunk. But I can see where some mamby-pambies might see that as extreme.
Other than that I think that extremist atheists are pretty darn cool people. I like this Garder guy's article. A lot.
I have a new hero; sorry, PZ. You're off the pedestal for a while.
I have to agree with Eamon Knight @ #1. I canceled my subscription to the Ottawa Citizen last year after receiving it for 25 years or so. I just couldn't take the constant strain on my blood pressure from the despicable idiots who wrote there. Dan Gardner was about the least objectionable, though. Glad to see that the idiots haven't forced him out yet. I imagine this column will do it though; there's a powerful pro-religion contingent in the editorial and opinion staff (or at least there was up until I quit taking the paper).
I guess I'll have to keep an eye on the Letters to the Editor to see how the paper spins the public's reaction to this.
I was wondering if an atheist could be sincere about the French version, but then I remembered the line "il sait porter la croix" about carrying the cross, which I shouldn't doubt is the Cross. Of course, if you want to sing about Her Royal Majesty, there's always "God Save the Queen". Not only is it short, but Americans probably already know the tune. I hadn't known, but it seems that a lot of others know it, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Save_the_Queen
Extremist atheist or not, I'd much rather sing about God and the Queen than that foolish Prince of Wales. Although his personal life's been played up as a big deal, everyone's got problems. However, I can't countenance his efforts to wedge homeopathy into medical practice. You've got to think long-term, and ask yourself if you're willing to have that man for a monarch.
At least we've still got gay marriage, for now. Every so often I make sure to ask my parents whether their traditional family has been destroyed by it, yet.
Prof. Myers sings @ #13:
It looks like you dropped a letter with that last word. Seeing as you needed a word that rhymed with "about", I'm sure you meant to say "trout". So, I guess the secret is out - our national police force are fish-whisperers.
BTW, here you go.
I believe strongly in evangelizing for rational thought, and I think Gardner's article is a great step in that direction.
I've actually been confronted on our transit system for reading the National Geographic article, "Was Darwin Wrong?" (First word in the text of the article was, I believe, "No."). But even I have to admit I didn't really want to get into it on a light rail car with a complete stranger who really wouldn't let people be. When the guy's going after me because I wouldn't listen to his comments on IC, I really did feel like telling him to just shove it.
Talking with a woman yesterday about Easter, she told me the event just never happened. I agreed, but pointed out that the Christians had merely hijacked an existing festival for their own twisted goals, and really, celebrating fertility was a pretty cool rite. So if my kids get invited to an Easter party, heh, I know the score.
Gardner's right, and I was probably a wimp. Not a wimp because I wouldn't argue the points of IC with him, but a wimp because I just wouldn't make a simple point: I don't believe in a spirit world, period. There's no invisible, intelligent being going around designing things.
So I'm feeling emboldened now. Instead of arguing IC with a stranger on a train, I'll just point out the absurdity of a spirit world, of superstitious practices (like praying, lighting candles, consuming substances, eating crackers, etc.).
The All Powerful doesn't love us or hate us. There just isn't an All Powerful one, that's all. There's a physical universe. The end. That's all there is.
I wrote trut'.
Don't "truth" and "about" rhyme in Canada?
the prim, squeaky in-betweeners who take pride in their weak-kneed mediocrity
There is another sort of in-betweener, who believes in God but cannot abide all the young-earth, six-days, fag-burning, plane-crashing, truth-denying, head-lopping bullshit; any more than you can. It's about time radical atheists like Dawkins and yourself treated them as your allies and not as a threat, nor patronized them as poor benighted fools trapped in ignorance and superstition.
They're rarely allies. Sure they may not demonize atheists and science but they rarely dare to say anything against the creationists. It's just not important enough for them to stand up against their "own".
"Be a good little atheist and shut up," which is what one often hears from that type, does not an ally make (at least not outside of strategic single-issue alliances of convenience).
Hey Justin. There's another possibility to consider. There are no teams; just a bunch of people with diverse ideas on a range of topics. The debate is not just only on creationism,
You are not Dawkins' ally, because you are fundamentally in conflict. He's opposed to religion; and you are supportive of it. You may have an agreement on the merits of creationism; but that's only a small part of the whole picture and it is definitely not all that Dawkins is talking about. So it's pretty naive to ask him to treat you as an ally. He does consider you to be a poor benighted fool trapped in ignorance and superstition.
For my part, I'm quite happy to treat you as an ally on creationism, and take up our differences in religion as a distinct topic. I'm cautious with the "fool" label; but I do suspect you are caught up in what is basically a superstitition. But hey. If you deal ok with the science, I'll work alongside you in the creationism wars without a qualm and without fixating on our religious differences.
Others, on the other hand, consider that the proper way to deal with creationism is to strike without compromise at religion as the root cause of the problem.
That's a tactical difference; and a big one. But as a Christian, you can't just presume to tell unbelievers which approach is best. Whether you are an ally or not depends on the approach we choose to adopt.
Yep. That they share faith with someone is much more important then whether we share the same ancestors.
I wrote a brief Letter to the Editor in support, and they called for confirmation, so it may appear. The Citizen is indeed a pretty awful paper (particularly with the religiosity, and the way they treat the weekend front pages like magazine covers), but as a diplomatic spouse I feel obliged to keep up with local events, so I remain a subscriber.
Justin Moretti,
Exactly what do you consider yourself our "ally" on? Certainly we can agree on science education and a repudiation of the more fantastical claims of Christianity. We clearly don't agree on the vacuous rendition of theology by liberal believers like yourself, nor do we agree that we should shut up about it. Uniformity isn't necessary for an "alliance", nor is it particularly desirable for us (by which I mean the New Atheists) to be "allies" on the terms of theists.
Sure they may not demonize atheists and science but they rarely dare to say anything against the creationists.
How many instances, and in what forum, would it take for you to consider it "not rare"? During the 1990s, about one-third of the pro-evolution posters on talk.origins were Christians (and I used to be one of them).
Are you aware that several of the Kitzmiller plaintiffs were Christians?
So: how many, and where? Put up or shut up.
I dunno. If 80% of the country is christian, and almost 50% don't accept evolution, I would hope that 30% of christians would speak up at least... using absurd fuzzy logic of course.
What stats do you have for me that shows it's not rare?
If that is not blasphemy, I don't know what is.
NO ONE is better than Paul, at least in English.
On a completely unrelated note, one of Canada's better TV personalities, George Stroumboulopoulos, is interviewing Richard Dawkins on his show "The Hour" tonight on CBC:
http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/
For those of us up here who get that channel, it's probably worth watching. George is definitely on the liberal side and likely to give Dawkins a great opportunity to speak his piece and have an intelligent discussion.
If you don't get the channel, it looks like they post videos online at the above website after the fact...
and now back to your regularly scheduled bickering.
I don't know: I think we're still trying to determine what is the threshold of "rare". If 30% of the whole group is your favorite number, then I guess it's rare. Do 30% of all atheists speak up on this issue? It seems to me that most people (of any persuasion) spend most of their time just going about their lives, with no more than the occasional letter to the local daily to air their views publicly.
What we do have (to my knowledge) is a few public voices (Miller, Collins, the NCSE Voices for Evolution project), a bunch of nerds-on-the-net like Glenn Morton and the t.o'ers, and some who take their fellow-religionists to court when they get out of line. Would more be nice? Of course, always. But it ain't nothing either.
As an ex-Christian who did speak out, as I was able, I'll grant that I'm a wee bit sensitive to sweeping claims of this sort.
"Writing about music is like dancing about architecture." Pete Townsend (attributed)
Our country reeks of trees
Our Yaks are really large
And they smell like rotting beef carcasses...
Oh, wait: That's the Royal Canadian Kilted Yaksmen anthem.
Never mind.
-- CV
Prof. Myers attempts to tease us Canucks with:
No true Canadian sounds like that! ;-)
The only Canadians who pronounce "about" like "a boot" are immigrant Scots - pretty rare these days. And the only ones who pronounce it like a randy tom-cat yowl are immigrant Americans. The rest of us fall in the middle somewhere (as usual, between our colonial ancestors and our American cousins).
It's about time radical atheists like Dawkins and yourself treated them as your allies
Well, great, but what the hell have you done for us lately? Why is it that when I hear anything out of the mouths of you so-called "allies", it's telling me what an asshole I am for having the naked temerity to think you're wrong about the whole Christianity thing, and to say so?
Great. We both want to deal with fundamentalism. The problem is that you so-called "allies" keep popping up to hobble atheists and keep them from fighting fundamentalism by dismantling the beliefs at its foundation. Arguments that moderates deliver in favor of religion, or in favor of the existence of God, provide cover to fundamentalism.
And what are you guys doing about fundamentalism in your religion? Say what you will about the fundamentalists, but at least they read their Bibles with a regularity not found among the moderates. They have that in common with most atheists. Quite frankly, I'm reticent to call people like you "allies" because I don't think arguments from the class of Christians who think "God helps those who help themselves" is a quote from the Bible are going to make much of a dent in fundamentalism. We're reluctant to call you "allies" because we just don't think you can be of much use.
I'm pretty sure that's Steve Martin ( http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/1553 ), actually.
I recited that line to my thesis advisor (and music theory professor) once. He was a little offended.
- Rieux, B.A. in music composition and German
"Sure they may not demonize atheists and science but they rarely dare to say anything against the creationists."
Actually, the progressive Christians I know *do* speak out against creationism, and they do so vehemently and vigorously.
As to whether they can be allies... I think it depends on which battle you're talking about. If you're talking about specific political battles, especially ones involving separation of church and state -- getting creationism out of schools, getting abstinence-only sex education out of schools, supporting same-sex marriage, etc. -- then yes. You betcha. I'm on the same side of those battles with my Christian and other religious friends, and I'm happy to call them my allies.
But I'm also battling against the idea of faith itself. I'm battling against the idea that "It just feels that way to me" or "That's just what I was taught" is, by itself, valid and sufficient evidence for a hypothesis about the world. I'm battling against the idea that "That's just what I believe" or "The light in my heart tells me that it's true" should be given the same weight and respect in a debate about what is or is not true in the world as mountains of carefully collected evidence and a solid, well-reasoned argument. (As I kept saying in a recent argument with a New Age friend of mine, intuition is a great starting place for understanding the world, but it's a terrible stopping place.)
And in that battle, religious believers are not my allies -- no matter how cool and progressive they are.
I dunno. I used to think this was an easier question. When I first started writing about this stuff, I assumed that of course my progressive religious friends -- Christian, New Age, all of them -- would be on my side. But that was before I actually started talking with them about it at length.
And alas, all too often, Steve C is right. "All it takes is... 'I don't like religion. I find it foolish.' BAM! You're an extremist/fundamentalist." It doesn't even take that, in my experience. All it takes is, "I think religious/ spiritual ideas are mistaken," or "I don't think the evidence supports that theory," or even, "What evidence do you have to support that idea?" It makes me really sad. I don't know what to do about it.
Thanks, protobiochemist @ #39, for the heads-up. I managed to catch Richard Dawkins' interview on CBC's The Hour last night, and even recorded it.
It was a pretty good performance by Dawkins. The interviewer was quite warm and receptive, and clearly liked the message in The God Delusion. He said several times that he had read the book, and drew on several of Dawkins' key points in the book for issues to discuss. They also discussed some of the criticisms leveled at Dawkins and the "new atheist" movement. It is the nature of the show that it is somewhat breezy and superficial, but still, this show was WAY more satisfying than the O'Reilly interview, for example. Dawkins was relaxed, smiled and even cracked a few wry jokes.
If you missed it, or can't get CBC, you can now see the interview online here.
Well, super-ultra moderate Ed could kick PZ's ass. And his penis is bigger.
Just remember, it's "We stand on guard for thee," not "we stand on God for thee." (Amusingly enough, my wife, who recently came back from a year-long research grant in Canada, was last month disabused of the notion that it was the second phrasing!)
Thanks bPer (#47) for the link. I just moved (end of semester here at Mac) so I don't have cable at the moment, so the online version is much appreciated.
PBC.
I still don't see what makes Dawkins, or I, radical atheists.
I feel I might be categorized as one of those terrible fence-sitters.
I find the tenor of the dialog around belief ridiculous, and many of the arguments put forward as proof that belief is either ultimately harmful or completely necessary are specious and weak.
I am a complete, unapologetic atheist. There is no god. Life is the result of a series of fortuitous occurrences which are constrained by universal principles. Of course, if a creator had created this universe and set up universal laws such that life would evolve to the point of deriving the nature of the creator, or if such a creator had simply formed the universe a microsecond ago fully formed (complete with the very subject we are discussing right now) there is no way to actually determine this.
However, I am not an atheist because I am violently opposed to religious notions. Humans are sufficiently complex creatures that I have to allow for a whole lot of variation in how individuals and aggregates of individuals cope with the burden of consciousness. I also recognize I can be irrational about some things, and hold as many "beliefs" in strictly unfounded notions as anyone who self-identifies as "Christian". It is the nature of the beast. It is not a computer sitting on top of our shoulders. It is a large organic organ that has evolved over millions of years, under many different circumstances and can be put to a great many uses.
Therefore, I actively reject the notion of "culture war" even though I have already been placed on a side of that war. The problem is, it depends on who my self-identified enemy is at a particular time that defines what side I end up on. If someone chooses a side for me, what point would it be for me to pick my own side? This would be additionally irrational, and would require significant dogma to rationalize.
T. H. Huxley wrote an essay on "The Evolution of Theology" which is a sort of anthropological survey of the human invention of religion. It is not the nature or content of the various theologies that should be the primary interest for intelligent people to discuss, but the fact that we feel it necessary to create this frameworks on which to hang our Big Ideas. Theology is no more intrinsically harmful or irrational than Music, Art, Science or any other human invention we have used to make sense of a vast universe that doesn't really seem to have anything to do with us.
An example: most of us participate in the economy, and a few of us study it, but very few of us do much more than believe that it works. Like "The Matrix" it is all around us.
At the same time, I'm sure there is room for criticisms of neo-liberal Western notions of economy not necessarily being the best tool for all economic jobs. I /guarantee/ you that there are many valid criticisms of that very belief system that many of us take completely for granted. Many of us would be quite surprised at what an efficient killing machine some expressions of economic theory are.
(Like many analogies, this only translates only so far. I don't want people to get wrapped up in the analogy, but see that there are many large systems we have created that few of us have any direct understanding of, other than indirectly. The fact that many of these Big Ideas can be used to hurt or excuse hateful behaviour should be considered significant.)
This is why I refuse to join the anti-religious pile-on, while still staying critical of specious arguments from religious leaders and post-modern existentialists alike.
It's easy to be sure of one thing or another: religious folk know they are right about some notion of some creator, and anti-religious people are just as sure they are right that there is no god. Both turn themselves inside-out trying to convince the other of their superiority, while missing the larger argument of why the fuck we have to great these systems in the first place.
Basically, given the choices I have in this weak-ass debate, give me the middle-ground any day if that is how others need to define it. I prefer to reserve the right to criticize the debate freely while choosing to explore the larger ideas that drive these simpler follow-on arguments.
I realize this may come off sounding pompous, since it sounds like I hold myself above many of the standard arguments around belief. Perhaps so, but perhaps a mitigating factor is that I've heard these sophomore arguments all my life, and they have not changed one nit. The current dialog on belief, to me, is like being trapped in a university town coffee-shop full of barely legal undergrads discussing the Meaning of Life. Yes, it may be necessary to go through that annoying stage, but there comes a time when we have to wrestle with more complex notions of how Life is.
This is why some may consider my point of view "lukewarm", but it doesn't make that assumption correct.
I am an Ottawa Citizen subscriber (to my eternal shame sometimes). The Vatican PR department has definitely set up shop there (particularly Sibley and Warren) and if it wasn't for the local stuff I like to know about (there aren't a lot of alternatives in Ottawa) I would ditch the paper in a heartbeat.
That said, let's hear it for Dan Gardner for finally breaking through the theistic cabal that runs that place. Hope he finds a good job.
I recently posted over at Richard's place on some of the religious silliness at the Citizen:
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13669
I am an Ottawa Citizen subscriber (to my eternal shame sometimes). The Vatican PR department has definitely set up shop there (particularly Sibley and Warren) and if it wasn't for the local stuff I like to know about (there aren't a lot of alternatives in Ottawa) I would ditch the paper in a heartbeat.
That said, let's hear it for Dan Gardner for finally breaking through the theistic cabal that runs that place. Hope he finds a good job.
I recently posted over at Richard's place on some of the religious silliness at the Citizen:
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13669
"Theology is no more intrinsically harmful or irrational than Music, Art, Science or any other human invention we have used to make sense of a vast universe that doesn't really seem to have anything to do with us."
Which is where I disagree with you, clvrmnky. I think theology is more harmful than any of these other human inventions, for lots of little reasons but one big one: It actively interferes with the ongoing human process of making sense of the universe.
With some exceptions (I typically cite the Quakers and the Bahai here), the whole idea of theology is that belief is more important than evidence. Unlike science, which has built-in self-correcting mechanisms to fix itself when it's wrong, theology has the exact opposite -- built-in self-perpetuating mechanisms to perpetuate beliefs no matter what. Unlike art or music or science, theology actively resists reality. And that, I think, makes it harmful.
"Theology is no more intrinsically harmful or irrational than Music, Art, Science or any other human invention we have used to make sense of a vast universe that doesn't really seem to have anything to do with us."
Which is where I disagree with you, clvrmnky. I think theology is more harmful than any of these other human inventions, for lots of little reasons but one big one: It actively interferes with the ongoing human process of making sense of the universe.
With some exceptions (I typically cite the Quakers and the Bahai here), the whole idea of theology is that belief is more important than evidence. Unlike science, which has built-in self-correcting mechanisms to fix itself when it's wrong, theology has the exact opposite -- built-in self-perpetuating mechanisms to perpetuate beliefs no matter what. Unlike art or music or science, theology actively resists reality. And that, I think, makes it harmful.
Oops -- sorry for the double comment, everyone. The server told me my first one didn't go through. Bad server! Bad!
Greta,
"I think theology is more harmful than any of these other human inventions, for lots of little reasons but one big one: It actively interferes with the ongoing human process of making sense of the universe."
I'm not sure I agree. Even if this were true, is it any more true than these other frameworks we are discussing? Has Politics not interfered with this process? Economics? Even the history of Art is filled with stories of intrigue and deception (though these usually intersect with those other biggies, Money and Politics). Some of the worst examples of human behaviour usually attributed to expressions of theological theory are usually tightly wrapped up with these other Big Ideas.
"Unlike art or music or science, theology actively resists reality. And that, I think, makes it harmful."
Art and Music does not resist reality? Economics (the "dismal science", remember) does not resist reality? These are frameworks that sprang from our brains which are used to digest reality and perception and transform it into something else. The result may be something we recognize as reality, or it may be a nightmarish alternate universe where nothing makes sense. But neither are "real", no matter how realistic they may appear to be. A photo is not the person, place or thing. A biography is not actual history in the making. The map is not the territory.
For further proof, examine the intersection of Art or Music and Economy. The rules at play in that domain make no sense at all!
I think you had better reexamine what you mean by "resist reality" because I see people doing just that, with any tool at their disposal, every single day of the week; some of these folks would line up to tell you they are "non-believers". Non-believers in /what/ I leave as an example for the reader.
This is exactly what I am talking about. Paint theology with as wide a brush as you like -- I'll even help you -- but we /have/ to treat these other Big Ideas in kind, or we are not being truthful to ourselves.
The fact is that theology and belief make us uncomfortable. They deal with squishy, transformative and sometimes nasty ideas that can make us squirm. To me, this is exactly what makes them interesting, because this is also what makes a novel, a painting or a composition interesting.
All I am saying is that I will continue to treat all of these notions as anthropological artefacts. These are the things we have built. They are all open to interpretation, reinterpretation and criticism. No one gets a free pass.
If I were to single out theology simply because it made me uncomfortable, or allowed me to look down on someone I identify as a "believer" then I am practicing the worst sort of prejudicial, irrational thinking. Inquiring where these ideas are the same, and where they are different (and how those notions change cross-culturally [since, you know, all the world is not Western capitalist secularism with a Puritan hang-over and a shame complex]) is, to me, an important question. Less important, to me, is inquiring why some people choose to go to church (even the variety of answers to that question would be interesting in their own right), or if church-going is harmful or not.
These are the ways humans express themselves. Just like not all ideas are worthy of further exploration, so is it possible that other forms of expressions might yield some utility or interest.
I guess I should clarify, clvrmnky. I'm not saying that theology is more harmful than any other human invention ever. I was saying that it was more harmful than music, art, or science.
And I was saying (or meant to say, anyway) that the idea of faith -- the idea that belief trumps evidence -- is among the most harmful ideas we've come up with.
Now, that kind of faith can certainly apply to things other than religion. Politics is a great example, actually, as is economics. The idea that adhering to an ideology (Communism, the free market, whatever) is more important than, say, not oppressing and torturing and killing people... that is a profoundly fucked-up idea, no matter what area of life it shows up in.
But I would also argue that religion is the area of human life where the idea of faith is most deeply rooted. I mean, in many major religions, the idea of belief trumping evidence is not just central to the theology, but is actually presented as a positive virtue, something that in and of itself makes you a good person.
Art? Music? No way. Sure, art can be used to deceive, and can even be used in the service of ideology. But there's nothing inherent in the idea or practice of art that says "You have to believe what I believe, based on no evidence except the strength of my belief."
I'm not trying to argue that all religious believers are bad or stupid people. I don't think that. In fact, I think the evidence contradicts that pretty profoundly. I just think they have a mistaken idea about the world that overall does more harm than good. I'm not looking down on the people -- I'm disagreeing with the idea.
"Writing about music is like dancing about architecture." Pete Townsend (attributed)
I don't see what's wrong with either, except the second is lame.
I can only assume the person who asserted the superiority of Ringo was kidding. Of course, I once saw it written in all seriousness that he was "the best drummer in the world." He wasn't even the best drummer in the Beatles. And George has the best solo material.
...forgot to include the attribution to John for the Ringo dig.
I keep seeing this term "New Atheists" being used. Where does this come from and why is there not a Wikipedia entry on it?
That's a good question. Anyone have a lexisnexis account and want to look up who may have coined the term?
wrg: That's the funny thing. Canada is a mild theocracy, on paper ... and yet we're much less extreme about religion than one of the most paper-secular countries in the world, the US ...
Gardner is his own best example of why the above approach works:
[...]
Btw, this sounds nice, write me up too: