Login |
New User
Books
Read the 1st Chapter!
The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution
The God Delusion
Over 1.5 million copies sold
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
Stand up, stand up, against Jesus
by Russell Blackford and Udo Schuklenk - guardian.co.uk
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/06/religion-atheism
The question: Is there an atheist schism?
Religious teachings promise us much — eternal life, spiritual salvation, moral direction, and a deeper understanding of reality. It all sounds good, but these teachings are also onerous in their demands. If they can't deliver on what they promise, it would be well to clear that up. Put bluntly, are the teachings of any religion actually true or not? Do they have any rational support? It's hard to see what questions could be more important. Surely the claims of religion — of all religions — merit scrutiny from every angle, whether historical, philosophical, scientific, or any other.
Contrary to many expectations in the 1970s, or even the 1990s, religion has not faded away, even in the Western democracies, and we still see intense activism from religious lobbies. Even now, one religion or another opposes abortion rights, most contraceptive technologies, and therapeutic cloning research. Various churches and sects condemn many harmless, pleasurable sexual activities that adults can reasonably enjoy. As a result, these are frowned upon, if not prohibited outright, in many parts of the world, indeed people lose their lives because of them. Most religious organisations reject dying patients' requests to end their lives as they see fit. Even in relatively secular countries, such as the UK, Canada, and Australia, governments pander blatantly to Christian moral concerns as the protection of religiously motivated refusals to provide medical professional services demonstrates.
In a different world, the merits, or otherwise, of religious teachings might be discussed more dispassionately. In that world, some of us who criticise religion itself might be content to argue that the church (and the mosque, and all the other religious architecture that sprouts across the landscape) should be kept separate from the state. Unfortunately, however, we don't live in that world.
...
Continue reading
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/06/religion-atheism
The question: Is there an atheist schism?
Religious teachings promise us much — eternal life, spiritual salvation, moral direction, and a deeper understanding of reality. It all sounds good, but these teachings are also onerous in their demands. If they can't deliver on what they promise, it would be well to clear that up. Put bluntly, are the teachings of any religion actually true or not? Do they have any rational support? It's hard to see what questions could be more important. Surely the claims of religion — of all religions — merit scrutiny from every angle, whether historical, philosophical, scientific, or any other.
Contrary to many expectations in the 1970s, or even the 1990s, religion has not faded away, even in the Western democracies, and we still see intense activism from religious lobbies. Even now, one religion or another opposes abortion rights, most contraceptive technologies, and therapeutic cloning research. Various churches and sects condemn many harmless, pleasurable sexual activities that adults can reasonably enjoy. As a result, these are frowned upon, if not prohibited outright, in many parts of the world, indeed people lose their lives because of them. Most religious organisations reject dying patients' requests to end their lives as they see fit. Even in relatively secular countries, such as the UK, Canada, and Australia, governments pander blatantly to Christian moral concerns as the protection of religiously motivated refusals to provide medical professional services demonstrates.
In a different world, the merits, or otherwise, of religious teachings might be discussed more dispassionately. In that world, some of us who criticise religion itself might be content to argue that the church (and the mosque, and all the other religious architecture that sprouts across the landscape) should be kept separate from the state. Unfortunately, however, we don't live in that world.
...
Continue reading
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/06/religion-atheism
Comments 1 - 36 of 36 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #429988 by rokeisland on November 6, 2009 at 3:14 pm
An excellent article that hits on the problem of political correctness without actually coming out and saying it....Talk about using civility to justify mockery and satire. Excellent job.
Other Comments by rokeisland
3. Comment #429995 by blakjack on November 6, 2009 at 3:33 pm
OK, let’s hear Christians explain how JC died and then came back to life. That seems a perfectly fair question and of course is at the very heart of their beliefs. The concept of re-incarnation makes no sense to me but I am ready to learn.Jack
Other Comments by blakjack
4. Comment #430012 by SaintStephen on November 6, 2009 at 4:41 pm
I don't think advocating scientific truth with a healthy splash of humor qualifies as mockery at all.
All of my comments are always respectful, anyway.
Other Comments by SaintStephen
5. Comment #430016 by D_mendes on November 6, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Once you think in that way, from a kind of marketing perspective, it can take over your approach to what you think you ought to say. Sincerity goes out the window, and everything must be "framed" to please the audience. We doubt that this strategy can work.
agree 100%
Other Comments by D_mendes
6. Comment #430021 by Apathy personified on November 6, 2009 at 5:20 pm
One of the key features of good mockery and satire is that part of its job is to hold up a mirror to those being mocked - It is useful, funny and the more upset they are the better.An excellent article, not sure there's is anything I disagree with.
Other Comments by Apathy personified
7. Comment #430038 by Quine on November 6, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Those who want to cast Atheism as a religion want, also, to impute to it the standard faults, such as schism. However, I do not see these different approaches as splits. The central issue is that we do not want religious dogma used against us in any way. If that central rule is met, most of us would not put up a fuss against whatever nonsense others want to believe. Unfortunately, when enough of the public does believe nonsense, it diffuses into so many areas that simple noninterference is not so easy to maintain. Other Comments by Quine
8. Comment #430039 by AndreeaR on November 6, 2009 at 6:25 pm
When using the word schism one seems to assume that there was once a homogenised mass of atheists all having exactly the same convictions and ideas, which I don’t think possible. Since atheist think for themselves it’s statistically impossible to ever have been such a time.As for being civil, surely it’s more uncivil of them to scare children with hellfire and eternal damnation than of an atheist inserting a joke in an adult debate.
Other Comments by AndreeaR
9. Comment #430040 by SaintStephen on November 6, 2009 at 6:38 pm
8. Comment #430039 by AndreeaR on November 6, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Welcome! Nice artwork.
Jerry Coyne mentioned something about a woman Bill Maher introduced him to, who had a tattoo of Archaeopteryx on her back. We need a photo of this... Josh...?
Other Comments by SaintStephen
10. Comment #430053 by RightWingAtheist on November 6, 2009 at 7:27 pm
My dogma about politeness and debate is that if we think someone is a primitive idiot, they should know it. Using manners to mask it is almost like lying.
Religion in particular deserves to hear this truth because religion praises stupidity with glorified synonyms. No, that's not dedicated faith, it's stubborn stupidity. All we are doing is repeating their own statements in words which would be used for the same mentality on other subjects.
Other Comments by RightWingAtheist
11. Comment #430054 by Eric Blair on November 6, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Since Russell and Udo brought it up, it's a pity they misunderstand how marketing works:Once you think in that way, from a kind of marketing perspective, it can take over your approach to what you think you ought to say. Sincerity goes out the window, and everything must be "framed" to please the audience. We doubt that this strategy can work.
Good marketing doesn't "frame" messages "to please the audience." It decides which audience it needs to "move" to accomplish its goals, then uses tactics that will influence that audience.
The key to successful marketing is your objective, or what you want "people" to do. From that flow identifying your audience and your specific message. You also have to understand your audience's wants and needs.
Your objective may be, for example, to stop people from eating any form of animal product. You may find telling them about the health benefits of veganism only works among those meat-eaters and vegetarians whose concerns about health outweigh their taste preferences. Likewise a focus on the costs of animal products versus vegetables, legumes and fruit won't work on people who don't mind paying extra for "good taste."
But these are at least useful approaches for defining your target audience.
I'm not clear how satirizing beef eaters or pork eaters would have much effect on those who only eat chicken or fish - or on vegetarians - who might well laugh along, thinking, "Oh, those silly eaters of red-meat (or near-red meat)."
A vegan marketer might well conclude that the best hope for converts would be among vegetarians, who already accept some of the principles vegans follow. So what would be the best strategy - present rational, evidence-based arguments on why consuming no animal products is more healthy than consuming even limited amounts and kinds; or make "light-hearted" fun of those who persist in eating such products?
My guess is the former, but a good marketer would research and analyze the vegetarian "market" to see what specific influences make veggies avoid meat yet still eat animal products, and then build a strategy to fit that prevailing mentality.
They then, of course, measure the results of the strategy's various tactics and see what worked and what didn't, and/or if the whole strategy is off the mark.
Otherwise, it's just guesswork and opinion and a waste of resources, which is what much of this discussion is. It can still be fun, of course, but it's not serious.
EB
Other Comments by Eric Blair
12. Comment #430066 by prolibertas on November 6, 2009 at 8:49 pm
'"moderate" religion (i.e., almost anything that does not dispute evolutionary theory)...'It's always seemed to me that if the definition of 'fundamentalist' should arise from any one particular doctrinal issue, then it should be the doctrine of Hell, not creationism. I'd take a creationist who didn't believe in Hell over a theistic-evolutionist who did, any day.
Other Comments by prolibertas
13. Comment #430076 by the great teapot on November 6, 2009 at 9:33 pm
"OK, let’s hear Christians explain how JC died and then came back to life"Come on blackjack that really is a stupid question. For someone who can create the universe do you imagine that would be difficult.It would be like doing a card trick.
The real question is "why do you believe people you have never met who lived 2000 years ago and weren't even witnesses to the actual events?"
Other Comments by the great teapot
14. Comment #430078 by Stonyground on November 6, 2009 at 9:35 pm
I find the claims that religion is not dying out interesting. Certainly those in the nineteenth century, that predicted the imminent demise of religion, would be most surprised to find it still around in the twentyfirst. However, in the developed world The notion that religion is alive and kicking is only being maintained by a shrinking minority of old people making more noise in proportion to their ever decreasing numbers. In the cut and thrust of modern day political dialogue their opinions are either ignored or ridiculed as the outdated fairy tales that they are.Other Comments by Stonyground
15. Comment #430085 by SaintStephen on November 6, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Civility has its uses, but we should not be afraid of satire and mockery as weapons against religious power.Parent: Honey, I have something to tell you.
Child: What, Mummy?
Parent: There isn't a Santa Claus.
Child: What? You're MOCKING ME! You know how much I love and depend on Santa Claus! He sees me when I'm sleeping. He knows when I'm awake. He knows when I've been bad or good... so I'm always good, for GOODNESS SAKE, Mummy! But without Santa, I might as well go steal an I-Pod Shuffle from the Apple store. Plus, you can't prove he doesn't exist, Mummy!
Parent: Your father and I give you presents because we LOVE you, honey. That isn't going to change.
Child: Um.... yeah, fuck Santa.
Other Comments by SaintStephen
16. Comment #430088 by Jack Rawlinson on November 6, 2009 at 10:21 pm
God... I'm developing a rare old loathing for the CiF commenter Tim Skellett... Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson
17. Comment #430106 by Crazycharlie on November 7, 2009 at 12:21 am
Atheists don't have schisms. Only dogmatic infallible religions have schisms. Other Comments by Crazycharlie
18. Comment #430124 by KRKBAB on November 7, 2009 at 3:00 am
14. Comment #430078 by Stonyground - That's a real good point. In fact, I think most younger people in the developed world would eventually shrink to the postition of deism if you talked to them long enough and really asked the tough questions. It's feels good to think this way- who knows if it's really happening. I think in perhaps two more generations we'll have a clearer picture as to whether this is true or not.Other Comments by KRKBAB
19. Comment #430132 by mmurray on November 7, 2009 at 6:29 am
@SaintStephenhttp://tinyurl.com/yc2jukw
Google is your friend, well at least when they aren't sucking up to totalitarian governments and watching everything you do.
Michael
Other Comments by mmurray
20. Comment #430133 by mmurray on November 7, 2009 at 6:32 am
The real question is "why do you believe people you have never met who lived 2000 years ago and weren't even witnesses to the actual events?"
Or better even "why do you believe anything in the bible". Point them at Bart Ehrman or this Dan Dennett talk
http://richarddawkins.net/article,4547,The-Evolution-of-Confusion,Dan...
Michael
Other Comments by mmurray
21. Comment #430139 by A on November 7, 2009 at 8:40 am
The question: Is there an atheist schism?Yes. On the issue of whether there is a god, the atheist community is split right down the middle, those who defiantly believe there to be no god (or think the idea unreasonable) and those who actively believe in the revealed truth of Jesus O'Christ.
I thankfully find myself in the latter group of atheists - and it is us who are being schismed, we need to bring our two warring sides together and face the real threat, theological non-cognitivism.
What do you mean 'schismed' is not a real word ?
Etc etc . . . . ad confusia.
(Ok, I am making up Latin now, I best go).
Other Comments by A
22. Comment #430144 by PERSON on November 7, 2009 at 10:05 am
1. Comment #429987 by WilliamSatire on November 6, 2009 at 3:14 pmAh, but as the old saying goes:
Me against my brother
Me and my brother against my neighbour
Me, my brother and my neighbour against the world
That's why the churches are slowly melting together. It'll take a while, but I'd be very surprised if the trend in the number of denominations has not been downwards for a long time.
The greatest cause of faction is lack of apparent threat.
Other Comments by PERSON
23. Comment #430154 by Glacian on November 7, 2009 at 1:20 pm
My only concern is there reluctance to say that religion can be eradicated - I don't think this is an unrealistic goal, just one that's unrealistic to expect to come to fruition any time soon. I'm confident that if and when we engage in the sorts of transhumanistic practices that will modify us beyond recognition, through genetic engineering, cognitive enhancement drugs, cybernetics, etc. that people will simply become too smart to be religious anymore. Here's to hoping we don't destroy civilization before then. Other Comments by Glacian
24. Comment #430160 by WilliamSatire on November 7, 2009 at 2:46 pm
BRIAN: Brothers! Brothers! We should be struggling together!
FRANCIS: We are!.. Oh...
BRIAN: We mustn't fight each other! Surely we should be united against the common enemy!
EVERYONE: The Athiest's People's Front?!
BRIAN: No, no! The Religious!
EVERYONE: Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yes.
(sorry, I'll stop now...)
Other Comments by WilliamSatire
25. Comment #430167 by SaintStephen on November 7, 2009 at 5:01 pm
19. Comment #430132 by mmurray on November 7, 2009 at 6:29 am
Ah yessss... plenty of nice artwork:
Went looking for Archaeopteryx and found a foot squid instead... Does PZ Myers run a tattoo parlor on the side?
(Neat trick with "the Google" btw!)
Other Comments by SaintStephen
26. Comment #430172 by TIKI AL on November 7, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Glacian @ 23: "people will simply become too smart to be religious anymore"I really, really would like to believe that, but the problem is that my Catholic and Mormon neighbors are the only ones in the hood that are popping out multiple rugrats and I lose "faith".
Other Comments by TIKI AL
27. Comment #430197 by WilliamSatire on November 7, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Glacian @ 23: "people will simply become too smart to be religious anymore"
I'm not convinced. Regression to the mean and all that - the chances are that two above average intelligent parent's kids will be more towards normal intelligence. Even more depressing, despite being a tautology, even if you have average intelligence, half the world is more stupid than you.
Is there any evidence that smarts are being naturally selected?!
Other Comments by WilliamSatire
28. Comment #430211 by j.mills on November 7, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Perhaps we may hope that the prevailing culture will "become too smart to be religious anymore"; that we reach a point where its commonplace to regard religious beliefs as quaint and embarrassing. This doesn't require a trend towards higher intelligence in individual humans, that's not the issue. It's what we do with our brains: you don't need to be Stephen Fry to notice that there's no evidence for gods, nor does braininess prevent someone like Isaac Newton from believing. We need to keep talking about it, getting atheism from the (perceived) fringe to the mainstream, and educating like mad. Other Comments by j.mills
29. Comment #430214 by WilliamSatire on November 7, 2009 at 10:30 pm
@j.mills - I think it would be very hard to compete with the emotional prize of seeing loved ones again, or of living forever. Other Comments by WilliamSatire
30. Comment #430215 by zeerust2000 on November 7, 2009 at 10:43 pm
When religion claims authority in the political sphere, it is unsurprising — and totally justifiable — that atheists and skeptics question the source of this authority. If religious organisations or their leaders claim to speak on behalf of a god, it is fair to ask whether the god concerned really makes the claims that are communicated on its behalf. Does this god even exist? Where is the evidence? And even if this being does exist, why, exactly, should its wishes be translated into law?
I think this is an excellent answer to the "why are you so strident?" question. Religion is not a harmless pursuit like knitting or stamp collecting. If religious authorities claim a political voice, then they can't complain when they attract fire from critics.
Other Comments by zeerust2000
31. Comment #430285 by Vaal on November 8, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Excellent article, Russell. You have articulately nailed it, as usual.
Other Comments by Vaal
32. Comment #430286 by Colwyn Abernathy on November 8, 2009 at 1:02 pm
I thought we were the Popular Front? Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy
33. Comment #430580 by WilliamSatire on November 9, 2009 at 3:39 pm
@Colwyn - no that's just you ;-) Other Comments by WilliamSatire
34. Comment #430694 by Spinoza on November 10, 2009 at 12:09 am
Well, the Roman Catholics did give us the Aqueduct. Other Comments by Spinoza
35. Comment #430766 by Shiva on November 10, 2009 at 10:15 am
Great article and I'm also reading a great book by these two; 50 Voices of Disbelief.Highly recommended.
Other Comments by Shiva
36. Comment #430893 by Eric Blair on November 10, 2009 at 7:18 pm
I think the article is clear enough, and correct, in saying that we must be ever vigilant in separating church and state. However, in the examples it uses – which aren’t that clear – it overstates the extent to which religion influences laws and “public” decisions in western democracies, and oversimplifies the issues at stake.Even in relatively secular countries, such as the UK, Canada, and Australia, governments pander blatantly to Christian moral concerns as the protection of religiously motivated refusals to provide medical professional services demonstrates.
I can’t access the link provided but am assuming this refers to refusals to provide abortions and/or medically assisted euthanasia.
In Canada, anyway, abortions are not illegal (there has been actually no law on the books since the existing law was struck down by the Supreme Court) and are performed routinely and funded publicly in hospitals and some freestanding clinics in most provinces. The main issue is access, as in at least one province and territory there are no institutions providing abortions and some other jurisdictions won’t fund abortions for out-of-province patients. These situations are sometimes due to resource issues in jurisdictions that have small populations.
The main cases where religion has an influence in access to abortion is a few hospitals, religious in nature or association, that have chosen not to provide abortion services (or not pursue doctors who would carry them out). This has become a human rights issue and is currently before the courts.
As for doctors who refuse to perform abortions for religious or other reasons, it doesn’t seem reasonable or fair, or indeed practicable, to force them to do so by – presumably – threatening to bar them from practising if they don’t. What woman would want an abortion by a doctor doing so against his or her will? The issue should be that she still have access to a doctor who will carry it out.
Euthanasia and assisted suicide is not (yet) legal in Canada, though there is mounting public and political will (and even support among medical organizations) to loosen laws against it and avoid prosecution of anyone who assists in euthanasia. Opposition to euthanasia has a strong religious component, obviously, but there is also wide concern that laws be changed in a reasonable and careful way to avoid abuse.
In Manitoba, where I live, there was a recent case where an Orthodox Jewish family wished to keep alive an elderly comatose man with no prospect of recovery or even consciousness, against the advice and opinion of the man’s doctors. The family got court orders to override the doctors’ decisions while further reviews were held; eventually the man died anyway without the issue being resolved.
The point arising from this and similar cases is not that a patient’s, or family’s, religious views should have no role in making such decisions but that they do not have absolute control. Such situations demand a reasonable balance of consideration of the patient’s rights and wishes (and the family’s where the patient is unable to express them), the professional opinion of doctors, and responsible use of public health-care resources.
At some point, hopefully, the law will be clarified or changed to avoid situations like this where an old man was, according to his doctors, put through what amounted to torture.
EB
Other Comments by Eric Blair
Comment Entry: Please Login
Register a new account
This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE
Upcoming Events:
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #429987 by WilliamSatire on November 6, 2009 at 3:14 pm
"Twitsworth: Are you the Athiest's People's Front?
Richard: F*ck off!
Twitsworth: What?
Richard: Athiest's People's Front. We're the People's Front of Athiesm! *outraged* Aithiest's People's Front... Cawk.
(except from the "The Life of Richard" (1977) by Ponty Mython)"
Evolutionary speaking (or Mevolutionary speaking) most people save their worst bile for their closest relatives (Liverpool/Manchester - England/Ireland - UK/France) I don't think athiests will be / are any different...
Other Comments by WilliamSatire