Comments by oisha
Comment #130570 by oisha on February 20, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Styrer,
"The basis for this seems to be the comment I made ('those adherents whom you have decided to separate from the tenets of Islam are not, in fact, Islamists or Muslims as we usually understand') relating to the excellent Steve's apparent appeasement technique of divorcing Islam's tenets from its more moderate adherents."
This was indeed the cause of my confusion over your earlier comments. Apologies if I misrepresented you. It was not my intention. I understood that you always considered the moderates and "nodder-towards" as part of the problem; however, it was my distinct impression earlier that the "tenets" of Islam which you were talking about were strictly the most morally objectionable ones and that you therefore excluded moderates from the category of Muslim.
"No. I define even the 'nodder-towards' as a Muslim, and urge as strong and robust a condemnation of this, more 'moderate' believer's selective acceptance of the Koran and of the Hadith as I would ask us all to reserve for the so-called 'fundamentalist' reading of these texts."
Thank you for this clarification.
"I was excited at several points, believe it or not, that I might be encouraged to change my mind on some of my earlier comments. The informed comments of Oisha, Al-Rawandi et al gave me pause. But I haven't. I could almost accuse you of being 'unpersuasive' if I did not think you would throw the word 'unheeding' (or 'stupid', if you wished to be crueller!) right back at me."
Given my comments to the effect that demonising people in debate can be very unhelpful, it would be entirely counterproductive and logically inconsistent for me to throw "stupid" right back at you, so I'm happy to take the "unpersuasive" on the chin. In fact, I take your comment that some of what we've said has given you pause as a compliment. It's even particulary refreshing, since it is my experience from debating theists that not only are they altogether disinclined to find the most sure-fire arguments "unpersuasive", but such arguments don't even give them pause (or when they do, it is rarely admitted and is compartmentalised as a crisis of faith). In my mind your comments are a reminder of the fact that we are in an "oasis for clear-thinking".
In any case, I don't think that there is a right/wrong answer to the points we've been discussing. It seems that much of what we're talking about is political objectives and tactics. Since I'm not psychic, I'm quite prepared to admit that my particular tactic may not be the most effective, bt I base it on certain judgements about the past and present.
"Mine may be a 'zero-tolerance' approach (is this not really what my liberal naysayers here cannot accept?) but it is one which I think is intellectually honest, and which refuses to fall through the dreadful and dangerous trapdoor of propitiation, which some here seem to be creeping ever more towards."
Again, this gets back to political objectives I think. Given the cultural context in which I live at present I have the dual objectives of "weakening the hold which religious belief has in our society" but I also have as another goal "weakening the hold which racism and xenophobia has in my society". I admit that this at times causes tension, because the most visible indicator of certain ethnic groups is their religion, but I do not think it is intellectually dishonest to switch approaches at times. To be more concise, you could compress my goals to the following: "to weaken the hold which unreason in general has in our society".
Whatever our differences in this thread, however, and whatever our differing objectives or approaches in principle, I suspect that we are not that different in practice. Nothing frustrates me more than the undeserved respect which religion warrants in our society, even among the non-religious. The thing which irks me most is the complacency and denial about religion which I receive from my own family who are not themselves religious, but who, I increasingly come to realise, believe in belief and regard my regular criticisms of religion as an "obsession".
As Daniel Dennett said in The Four Horsemen, "there's no polite way to tell somebody, do you realise you've wasted your life? Do you realise you've devoted all your efforts and all your goods to the glorification of something which is just a myth? Or have you even considered the possibility." As Dennett suggests, the political decision therefore comes down to one of "am I going to articulate this criticism or am I just going to button my lips". In my case, I will always articulate my criticism, as I'm sure you will. I wouldn't exactly call mine a zero-tolerance approach, but would say that you and I perhaps share a lot of common ground.
Comment #128114 by oisha on February 16, 2008 at 8:09 am
Thank you for your comments, Bonzai. They were indeed interesting. Certainly, cultural sensibilities have a very strong historical context. Tied up in this, I'd also suggest is a very strong emotional component which can be difficult to convey to somebody who does not share it.
The episode in my earlier post was indeed an eye-opener for me. I wouldn't say that I was unaware of the cultural differences at the time (indeed I had attempted to explain what I was talking about using the very same analogy you mention regarding Japanese Imperial symbols); nevertheless, the incident did awaken me to how greatly our moral judgements are preconditioned by language and culture.
In Australia I would say that the "swastika" and the image itself are both loaded with all sorts of negative connotations and emotional baggage which influence our perceptions even before we are provided with a particular context in which to place it. This was certainly the case for me as a child. "Swastika", "Nazi", "fascist", "Pol Pot", even "Satan": these were all words that came to me imbued with such negative connotations that I understood them as evil even before I knew the history behind them, despite the fact that I was not personally affected by the Holocaust, and long before I could have given a full rational account of why the things that they signified were so bad (or not bad in the case of Satan, who does not of course exist). I daresay that, because of our different cultural experiences, some of the words above would evoke very different emotional responses in my girlfriend, despite the fact that for both of us English is our first language.
I won't be so postmodernist as to say that this makes communication impossible (I happen to think that "cultural barriers" are often overrated and not as insurmountable as people sometimes like to think), but it can mean that even when people think they are talking about the same thing, they may actually be starting on very different pages, which is why patience and forebearance is all the more important if we are genuinely concerned with pursuasion rather than proselytisation.
Insofar as this has anything to say about religion, I think it is that we need to be aware that the language of faith ("Good Book", "Ten Commandments", "Moses", "Abraham" even the word "faith" itself) is imbued by believers with all sorts of positive connotations where a non-believer might think the same thing positively ridiculous and even immoral. Sometimes even the non-believers are fooled. There are, for exmaple, many non-Christians even who persist in the mistaken notion that the Ten Commandments are an impeccable moral code, purely based on its reputation in the dominant Christian culture. I myself can testify to having a similar perception of Mother Teresa until I read Hitchens's 'Missionary Position'. If even atheists can fall victim to such reputational cascades, imagine how much more persuasive they must be to genuine believers.
I would say that many so-called agitators for the installment of Shariah Law would fall in this same category of advocacy. They have been conditioned by language and culture to view Shariah Law as positive and, for lack of alternative information, simply accept their society's default position. Hence, in their minds Shariah Law = Good and Secularisation = Bad.
I am nevertheless hopeful that if we expose Muslims to liberalism and encourage them to honestly and rationally examine the two alternatives, it will only be a small Islamofascist minority which opts for the former if given the choice.
Or maybe I just hope for too much. :P
Comment #128051 by oisha on February 16, 2008 at 12:14 am
MaxD,
I couldn't agree with your comments more, which is one of the reasons why I was so reluctant to concede to Styrer's attempts to redefine Islam and Muslims as only muslim fundamentalists.
I think we must oblige the religious moderates to be even more scathing of religious fundamentalism than ourselves. We need to oblige them to take responsibility for their religion's excesses. Allowing them to redefine themselves as "not really Muslim" lets them shirk this responsibility all too easily. It's a get-out-of-jail-free card that we shouldn't allow them.
Comment #126697 by oisha on February 14, 2008 at 1:38 am
"Am I the only one to think that having stories highlighting the worst aspects of your culture - aspects that a vast majority are repulsed by - and having comments published suggesting that people of a certain faith can "fuck off back to where they came from" (even if they are born and bred in the country they are to "fuck off" from), stories in every major paper and seemingly every month, won't make them turn inward?"
Hear, hear. Above I gave an example of an occasion when I had cause to take a sympathetic yet uncompromising tact in approaching the criminalisation of gay sex with a literalist Christian friend. I believe that it was considerably effective, especially as I was joined in the debate by a number of mutual friends, not least of all his girlfriend, who supported my point of view.
Consider however the following counterexample in which I let emotions get the better of me:
On this occasion the subject of dispute was Prince Harry's wearing of the swastika at a fancy dress. I conceded to another Singaporean friend that I thought Prince Harry was just a silly boy out having a lark, but I nevertheless condemned him for demonstrating that, as a supposed figurehead of England and indeed Europe, he was so obviously insensitive to the feelings of people who he might potentially represent. My friend obviously did not agree, and failed to see why people should feel offended. I attributed this to the fact that the swastika is not as abhorred in her society as it is in most of Europe and indeed Australia, and I attempted to communicate to her the tacit endorsement of certain Nazi behaviours which it symbolises. Ours was something of an ongoing discussion, with my friend jokingly suggesting that she would put the swastika on her door, which indeed she eventually did. In an attempt to convey to her what the swastika meant to many Australians I subsequently showed her the movie Schindler's List. At the conclusion of that heart-rending experience I said, "Now do you see why the swastika is so offensive?" Plainly, my friend did not, and still failed to see the connection between the abstract symbol itself and the violence which was perpetrated under its aegis. It was at this point that I lost it.
I accused my friend of lacking a social conscience and, to my everlasting shame, said something which went entirely against my character and which it is painful to me to even repeat. I said, "If you wore a swastika out in public, you'd get slapped all the way back to Singapore, and I'd be there cheering them along all the way."
Now somebody like Finusi Khiyal might think such comments were called for; however, I would disagree. In that moment, and to my horror, I had become a member of the "go-home-brigade". It was an immediate conversation closer. My friend responded, "you can shove your righteous indignation up your arse" and promptly stormed out of the room. Certainly, I thought my "righteous indignation" justified at the time, but the important point to note is that the unsympathetic, angry and demonising way in which I expressed it immediately put an end to any rational discussion, and any hope of changing my friend's mind. I had gone from being a caring and moral person to someone who was now essentially advocating physical violence to a cherished friend. Not only were my comments hurtful, but they were entirely unhelpful. They immediately polarized the debate and prevented further discussion.
Fortunately the two of us managed to patch things up after a sincere apology from myself and a great deal of silent treatment in the meantime. We have forged a close relationship since and are in fact now boyfriend and girlfriend; however, the episode is to me a warning against dehumanising people during debate. Irrespective of who was right or wrong, my friend's reaction to my attack upon her character was not only justified but predictable - as is the response which "fuck off home" comments would elicit if directed at well-intentioned but naive supporters of Sharia Law. That is to say, they polarize the discussion in such a way as prevents further dialogue, let alone a change of heart, and the only thing which they achieve is to drive the social conservatives into the open and more sympathetic arms of the Islamofascists.
Comment #126508 by oisha on February 13, 2008 at 11:35 am
Fanusi Khiyal,
The trouble here is that your policy, which perhaps hasn't been well thought out, could have some very very unpleasant ramifications.
For example, is the crime that these people are muslims or that they support Sharia Law? If the latter, as you suggest, then surely British-born multiculturalist extremists like Rowan Williams are just as much of a threat as foreignborn Shariah Muslims. Likewise Britishborn Muslim supporters of Shariah. So what are you going to do about them, given that their home IS Britain and that you have nowhere else to send them? This was precisely the kind of dilemma which led Hitler to arrive at The Final Solution. Even were you to draw the line at simply putting people in prison (read, concentration or re-education camps) on what grounds are you to do so? The last time I checked, thought-crime wasn't punishable by law. One of the single instances in which the right to freedom of expression is curtailed by law is in the incitement of hatred or racial and sexual vilification. Granted, a supporter of Shariah may contingently infringe these laws, in which case the person could be punished; however, support of Shariah IN PRINCIPLE wouldn't necessarily constitute incitement of hatred, unless it is hatred of particular British values. But if it is to suddenly become a crime (punishable by expulsion or imprisonment) to simply dissent against the present moral Zeitgeist then we begin a long and slippery slide down a slope with no end in sight. Secular or Christian social conservatives could be jailed for bemoaning the prevalence of condoms or divorce. As is so often the case in attempting to resist terrorism/islamofascism etc., we may so easily become that which we most want to resist. It doesn't take much to see how your brand of thinking, of expelling people "en masse", if applied in practice could lead to excesses on a par with that of Idi Amin, Pol Pot et al.
The fact is that the democratic system provides the most reasonable check against supporters of Shariah. People are free to say what they like without fear of physical reprisal. However, their freedom of speech gives them the freedom to be thought a foolish or immoral person, and to be criticised for it. Meanwhile, the current laws (if they'll only be policed a bit more often) are adequate to combat those elements who genuinely set out to incite hatred. I, for one, did not say that the cutoff line was with violent jihadists, I said the cutoff line was with people who incite hatred - whether they be an ideological Islamofascist or a socially conservative Muslim along for the ride.
Comment #126467 by oisha on February 13, 2008 at 9:57 am
I totally agree with Sauveterre's comments re: nomenclature. I was making that exact same point when I forgot to save my post and it failed to submit.
I find that Styrer's personal definition of the word "Muslim" flies in the face of common usage. Although I agree that moderates are less "faithful", I would suggest that they nevertheless draw such abundance of material from the Muslim tradition that it is difficult to think of them as anything other than "Muslim". And ditto what al-rawandi said about "core tenets".
I would suggest, however, that for the purposes which Styrer would like to use it, the word Islamofascist is perhaps more useful and more widely recognised as being intrinsically negative. I think we can all happily agree that Islamofascism has no place in a secular liberal society.
That said, I think we also need to recognise that not all supporters of Sharia Law are Islamofacists, even though they may provide moral and material support to Islamofascism.
There are, I would suggest, a number of Muslims who are socially conservative and who reflexively and naively support the installment of Sharia Law, purely because it is part of their religious tradition. However, they are not necessarily ideologically committed to Islamofascism. On the other hand, there are muslims who ARE ideologically committed to Islamofascism and who are ideologically opposed to democratic liberalism.
This may all sound like I'm splitting hairs, but let me explain with an example. Think of it like this. In Nazi Germany, there were people who were ideologically committed to National Socialism and to the Nazi Party, and then there was the majority of the population who at least initially, before the horrors of Nazism became fully apparent, thought that what the Nazi Government was doing was benefiting the country and that, "well, since it's working it must be a good thing mustn't it". Ultimately, the latter were of course just as complicit in Nazi crimes, but in terms of risk management, the former were the much greater immediate threat to democracy and indeed the world. They were the fuel for the whole caboose so to speak. Like the ideological Islamofascists, it was they who were the true criminals.
Insofar as ideological Islamofascists may incite hatred etc. they deserve to have the full weight of the law thrown at them. If they are British citizens, then this, to me, implies prison, not deportation. And they should be tried as individuals for their individual offences. I do not understand why this is not more often the case.
(On a side note which demonstrates my point, there is a wonderful independent Australian series called "John Safran vs God". In one episode, John Safran goes to Britain to attempt to have the head of the Sharia Court declare a fatwa on Rove McMannus, a rival television personality. Providing the Court with evidence which is entirely fabricated, he succeeds. How are people like the head of this Sharia Court NOT put in prison?!)
I have sufficient confidence in Britain's democratic system to anticipate that no Sharia Law would ever be officially enacted that was in anyway an offence to human dignity. So instead of demonising all Muslims, even socially conservative supporters of Sharia Law (and thus allowing the "go-home-brigade" the oppurtunity to give vent to the worst racism - something which in my mind is as real and as unsavoury a threat as Islamofascism), it seems to me that the best hope of creating a just society would be to crack down on the criminal and ideological Islamofascists and to educate other supporters of Sharia Law (who may be more amenable to a change of heart) about the individual, collective, and moral benefits of secular liberalism. This is not to say that anyone should pussyfoot around the wrong and right of it all, but that we can be sympathetic to the people (who are perhaps merely misled), even as we condemn certain of their ideas and champion our own. Importantly, such an open dialogue about secular liberal values would inevitably force the social conservatives to clarify their position and separate the true Islamofascists from the sheep.
I found this strategy particularly effective in dealing with a literalist Christian friend who had naively (and in my mind immorally) signed an online petition which urged his Singaporean Government to retain a piece of legislation that outlawed gay sex - a piece of colonial Christian law which is at least comparable with Sharia Law. Though I wouldn't say that I've completely changed my friend's attitude towards gays, I think I at least succeeded in stripping him of the notion that he or his society has any right to say what somebody else may or may not do in the privacy of their own home, so long as it doesn't harm anyone. In short, he may still harbour thoughts that homosexuality is a sin (although I doubt he holds such thoughts so certainly anymore), and at least he's given up on the idea that he or his society has any right to restrict the liberties of others.
I take Sam Harris's point that moderates give succor to the literalists and the literalists give succor to the fundamentalists and the fundamentalists give succor to the terrorists and other nutters of the world, but to acknowledge that all are potentially dangerous is not to say that they all pose an equally immediate threat, or that we should take a one-size fits all approach in eliminating those threats. Any response must be proportionate to the threat, which must be judged with far greater nuance than the false dichotomy of "us" versus "them". Australia's mandatory detention, the 'Children Overboard' controversy, the Pacific Solution, the Siev X catastrophe and the Tampa incident are all clear examples of the injustices that can occur when these simple rules of thumb are abandoned for fear and anger of a dangerous "other".
Comment #126417 by oisha on February 13, 2008 at 7:51 am
"I think I've made my stance on the bulk of the questions you raise quite clear, except for your wholly wrong-headed attribution to my comments of 'a transfer of an entire group of people'. Where the fuck did that come from, sir? Certainly not from me."
Styrer,
Ah, well, actually, you quoted Fanusi Khiyal at length and then gave his comments a resounding "Hear, hear" (Comment #126303). In the process, you endorsed the comment, "I see no problem whatsoever in giving them a swift kick out the door, back into the Middle Eastern hellhole of their choice."
How else were Al-rawandi, Steve and myself supposed to interpret this endorsement, except as a statement of your support for the tranfer of an entire group of people?
8. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned
Comment #125693 by oisha on February 11, 2008 at 9:15 pm
babrock,
Ditto what Steve said.
As you may also see from my comments in this thread, I'm less than enthusiastic about Hari's root and branch dismissal of multiculturalism, although I can see where he's coming from.
9. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned
Comment #125418 by oisha on February 11, 2008 at 10:38 am
If one thing has become clear from this thread it's that multiculturalism has meant different things for different people at different times in different places, and that the problems which we face need to be dealt with in a local setting where those complexities can be properly appreciated. It seems from the vast majority of European posts here that the brand of multiculturalism which I am acquainted with in Australia is a very different beast to that found in England. I'm glad to say that I've been enlightened by the discovery. For anyone who cares to find out more about the Australian alternative, here's a nicely concise summary provided by the University of Western Sydney:
http://www.uws.edu.au/studyoptions/residential/lifestyle/multicultural
Importantly, Australian multiculturalism doesn't imply that society should or ought to remain culturally diverse, but recognises that this is the present and future reality of Australian society. It therefore attempts to channel such diversity into positive endeavours and to foster an inclusive society. Equally importantly, it does not, in theory, compromise on the basic structures and principles of Australian society, eg. democracy, law, freedom of speech etc.
Edit - It seems to me on a second reading that Australian conceptions of multiculturalism are more like those attested to by Bonzai in Canada: "It doesn't exclude and doesn't preclude participation in mainstream society. It merely allows an identity in addition to the common citizenship. Nothing is taken away. It allows people to slip in and out of different identities. It is liberating rather than binding."
10. Chasers war on everything: Evangelicals
Comment #125379 by oisha on February 11, 2008 at 9:42 am
Veronique and Flagellant,
Unfortunately Australia does NOT have a wall of separation. You'll immediately want to tell me that I'm wrong but bear with me, and let me explain the legal semantics. To recap, Section 116 states,
"The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth."
As much as I wish it were otherwise, there are a number of shortcomings to this from a secular perspective.
#1. Notice the word "for"? Although small, this single word has huge ramifications for the practical application of the Section. Its effect is to make the intention of the legislator a primary consideration in questions of whether a given law is constitutional or not. Hence, a law which has the practical result of establishing a religion may be permitted if it is deemed that the law was not made FOR that purpose. Therefore, the Government is not acting illegally when it sponsors faith-based schools, because however much this might act to establish religion in PRACTICE, the monies are being issued in PRINCIPLE for the provision of education services, often on the basis of economic rationalist philosophies.
#2. "Establishment" is used in the very technical legal sense in which a particular state and church become institutionalised, one with the other. It does not refer to a general increase in a society's religiosity. Non-Commonwealth grants which assist, support or encourage religion are not in and of themselves sufficient to qualify as establishment.
#3. The phrasing "any religion" also means that the Commonwealth is prohibited from enacting legislation with the willful intention of establishing any one particular religion above all others, but it is not prohibited from enacting legislation with the willful intention of establishing religion generally. So long as the Commonwealth does not favour one religion over another, it is free to spend as much money on religion as it likes. Hence, the constitution was on John Howard's side when he attempted to offer funding to public schools which would install a faith chaplain. Although such funding would have clearly been prejudiced against counsellors who might maintain a secular worldview, Howard was careful to ensure that the faith of the chaplain remain unspecified and would be left at the discretion of the school in question. Hence, it qualified as non-preferential support of religion, and would therefore have been permitted under Section 116.
This may all sound rather pedantic, but hey, that's lawyers for you. The precedents for these interpretations were set in the 1981 Defence of Government Schools case. I think it's as big a load of b***sh*t as you probably do, and I resent Howard's duplicitous attempts to introduce religion into public schools under the aegis of "values education" as much as the next person, but I'd only be lying to myself if I said that Australia DOES have a wall of separation when, as much as I rue it, it actually doesn't - or, at least, it's missing a hell of a lot of bricks.
Fortunately, however, we live in a democracy. The constitution affords the Government many powers that are often not invoked because it would still be politically unwise to do so (such as conscription, or the ability to overturn land right claims for which it is in the "national interest" to do so). Thankfully, enough people kicked up a fuss about Howard's chaplaincy plans that it ultimately became a non-event, and that makes the role of forums such as these all the more important.
11. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned
Comment #125300 by oisha on February 11, 2008 at 8:00 am
"Well, not entirely. The problem is when people use the issue of culture for racist ends. This is something we have to watch out for."
Steve seems to be stealing the words right out of my mouth tonight. I did not mean to suggest as my earlier comments may imply that ALL critics of multiculturalism are racist, but I would suggest that racism is nevertheless alive and well and that MANY critics of multiculturalism ARE racist. Anybody who thinks otherwise would have to be living in a dreamworld, or at least, not the Australia that I'm living in.
Whereas the indicator of "race" may previously have been blood or complexion or eye colour, the new signpost for the "other" has become different cultural traditions. Many racists and xenophobes irrationally view their own culture as instrinsically superior simply because it is their own, the one that they were born into - and not for any of the more Enlightened or rational reasons which most readers here would canvas: universal human rights, for example. The more aesthetically different a culture may be the more inferior these racists will consider it, even if it is the more aesthetically similar culture which is a much greater affront to human decency.
Ask a handful of non-tertiary educated Australians how they would define Australian culture, for example, and I daresay a good number of them would resort to the tired cliches of Vegemite, cricket, Weet Bix, Waltzing Matilda and so on before they'd even think to mention freedom of speech, or democracy, or the rule of law. In their mind, it is the former group rather than the latter which is under threat from multiculturalism and they will reflexively defend it at all costs. Quite simply, they have got their priorities around the worng way. They are anti-liberal and cling so desperately to their own aesthetic preferences that they disparage other cultural aesthetics and see no place in society for legitimate alternatives. They are thus hostile to anyone who would even attempt to import such alternatives, however benign. It is this xenophobia which is at the heart of racist critiques of multiculturalism. Some people just don't like change and will try to keep other people from changing around them as a salve against their own insecurities.
Clearly, the above articles and many of the above comments do NOT fall into this category of critique, and I did not mean to imply that they DID. However, if we're going to encourage criticism of extreme multiculturalism such as that demonstrated by Rowan William, then I think that racism is such a pervasive force for evil that we must be just as uncompromising in our attitude towards those who may try to misconstrue our comments as a blanket denunciation of other cultures. There are justified critiques of multiculturalism and then there are unjustified critiques.
In my above post, I merely meant to draw attention to the fact that many people who call themselves multiculturalists are not cultural relativists or the wishy washy kind of multiculturalist exemplified by Rowan Williams. In my mind, multiculturalism means embracing those aspects of other cultures which are objectively beneficial to society, rejecting those aspects which are objectively counterproductive, and letting everyone enjoy all other aspects of other cultures which are neither better nor worse but merely different. Maybe this doesn't qualify me to call myself a multiculturalist in your mind. My definition of multiculturalism is, I admit, just a restatement of "liberalism"; but it is, as I have already argued, the definition which many multiculturalists would sympathise with and there are a number of good reasons for why they retain the term "multiculturalism" even if it IS just a euphemism for liberalism. I think that there may be a lot more common ground here than some posters are willing to admit.
12. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned
Comment #125217 by oisha on February 11, 2008 at 4:36 am
I, like Steve, have also moaned a bit about the Condell video and was surprised to find myself agreeing with much more of this article than I anticipated given its controversial title.
Nevertheless, I think that what we've got here is another of those "what should we call ourselves?" debates.
In an ideal world the word "multiculturalist", like "atheist" would indeed be redundant. Nevertheless, I still call myself a multiculturalist, and I do so in the sense that I champion liberalness (not in the slavish and bent-over-backwards sense that Rowan Williams is committed to cultural diversity for diversity's sake). It seems to me that this would be the case for the majority of multiculturalists I know, and that this multiculturalism gone crazy that every now and then rears its head is a minority position. In Australia, John Howard famously co-opted the term "mushy multiculturalism" which, while suitably applied to the likes of Rowan Williams, has been used by the political Right to mischaracterise and discredit more sobre multiculturalists in precisely the same way that theists have mischaracterised atheists as nihilists.
Of course, in a society that was everywhere struck through with a spirit of "liberalness", there would be no need to speak of multiculturalists at all, but I continue to refer to myself as one in order to distinguish myself from the monoculturalists and assimilationists who are still so numerous. I do so in the same spirit that I refer to myself as an atheist. I am hopeful that there will indeed be a time when it is unnecessary to do so, but I do not feel that the time for this is now. For reasons that I spoke of in the Condell post, I am less than convinced that the age of assimilation is dead and buried in Australia and for me the word multiculturalism still retains enormous utility.
In Australia I find that this is particularly and almost inescapably the case, because the big-L "Liberals" are actually the country's largest socially conservative party and the party most frequently associated with monoculturalist tendencies. This is so much the case that little-l liberals must necessarily refer to themselves by alternative vocabulary.
13. Sharia fiasco
Comment #125107 by oisha on February 11, 2008 at 1:34 am
Steve: "any tendency to separate fellow citizens into "them" and "us" groups is worrying"
I agree. Instead of categorising culture as either "indigenous" or "Muslim" as Pat does, I think it is far more constructive to differentiate between values which move us in the direction that we want to move as a society, and those values which do not. Importantly, this doesn't mean that we should accept Sharia Law wholesale or even in part, but it does allow for a dialogue and an exchange of ideas that is predicated on commonality rather than division. Most importantly, it allows for the possibility and indeed the aim that mutually accepted values can transcend culture and attain towards the lofty heights of universal human rights.
14. Sharia fiasco
Comment #125092 by oisha on February 11, 2008 at 12:18 am
"As an extreme lefty American, I wouldn't exactly suggest waterboarding and deportation as ways of dealing with extremist Muslims, and I'm horrified with the macho attitude taken by my government in recent years. However, there is a limit. It is time to show true grit. We must stand forcefully upon our principles without shattering them in the process. Its not an easy balance, but we should insist on it. Tolerance, not acquiescence."
Like some of the other posters here, I'm somewhat split over this post. I'm an Australian, and just like most Brits and Americans I've probably seen my fair share of Islamophobia. I don't for a minute put Pat's video in that category, and I agree with his comments almost entirely wholeheartedly. Nevertheless, I'm alarmed at the political powderkegs which videos such as this one provide rightwing opponents of liberalness and multiculturalism.
I am indeed a liberal multiculturalist, but I'm not by any means a cultural relativist or a "bedwetter liberal". For anyone not familiar with the Australian situation, it perhaps suffices to say that former Prime Minister John Howard has given Bush and Blair a run for their money in the Islamophibia stakes. A number of infamous incidents (Australia's policy of mandatory detention for asylum seekers, the Tampa incident, the 'Pacific Solution', and the 'Children Overboard' controversy) have earned John Howard justified criticism from HREOC. His former Government took demonisation of Muslims to new heights and its treatment of asylum seekers and Australian Aborigines has been truly abhorrent. It has also appealed to the most unpalatable elements of society, which saw John Howard become the second longest serving PM in Australian history. Add to this the former rise of Pauline Hanson, an overtly racist Liberal-cum-founder of the One Nation Party (in Australia the Liberals are the righties), and you have a recipe for unthinking racism and xenophobia. John Howard's reign has been the single biggest setback in the recent history of tolerance in Australia. I consider this a national crisis, and am as much concerned by it as I am by Muslim fundamentalism. It is the single issue which causes me most pause when criticising religion.
I do not by any means attempt to sweep the realities of Islam under the carpet, but I cannot sweep the realities of present-day Australia under the carpet either. There is a very real racist element in Australia, and it is perhaps larger than a lot of people would think. This element is quite often poorly educated, wouldn't even know what Sharia law is, has no desire to acquaint itself with the complexities of Islam, equates the word "integration" with "cultural assimilation", and misuses rational critiques of Islam to irrationally reject anybody who does not act like us, speak like us, or look like us. I have just got done writing a rebuttal to a particularly nasty chain letter which states that immigrants (note that we've now moved from the particular to the general) should stop complaining about Australian culture and "move to another part of the planet". The chain letter's factual claims, unlike those made by Pat, were completely vacuuous and the implications of its broader message were frightening to say the least.
Hence, I have to ask myself, what political agenda would be best served by a video such as this in an Australian context? Sadly, I have to say that a video such as Pat's would be much more likely to act as fuel to the racist fire which is so prevalent these days, than as a justified critique which nevertheless champions the creation of a truly inclusive society. There is no competing with other people's irrationality and selective hearing sometimes, and what I'm concerned about is that videos such as this are too easily misused and abused by those other enemies of reason (eg. racists), where a more restrained and elaborately articulated (though no less critical) piece might achieve the same objective and leave far less room for ambiguity. At the barest minimum, I think a video like this needs to venture some practicable and specific solutions for the future in order to take the sting out of the "go home brigade".
15. That's not MY God or Religion you're criticising
Comment #124749 by oisha on February 10, 2008 at 6:38 am
I recently came across this response, which I thought trounced them all. Surprisingly it came from a person of faith, Irshad Manji, a prominent critic of Islam and a muslim herself. Manji is one of those rare moderates who recognises the part that moderates must play if religion's dangerous excesses are to be thwarted - that part begins with taking responsibility for the bad, and not just the good. She is speaking in an Islamic context but her comments are perhaps instructive to people of faith everywhere:
"The trouble with Islam today is that literalism is going mainstream, worldwide.
You’ll want to assure me that what I’m describing isn’t “true” Islam. I hope you’re right. That’s why I’m writing this open letter - because I believe that we Muslims are capable of being more thoughtful and humane than most of our clerics give us credit for. But for the sake of an honest discussion, I have to challenge you to come clean about the Islam you reflexively defend. Is this Islam in its real form or Islam as ideal. Communism is egalitarian as an ideal. Capitalism is fair as an ideal. The United States Constitution guarantees liberty and justice for all, as an ideal. Muslims know that the reality is very different. As people of conscience, we have to address Islam’s realities too.
I think Prophet Muhammad would have embraced this distinction between the real and the ideal. When he was asked to define religion, he reportedly replied that religion is the way we conduct ourselves toward others. A fine definition - simple without being simplistic. And yet, by that definition, how we Muslims behave, not in theory but in actuality, is Islam. It also means the power is ours to restore Islam’s better angels: those who care about the human rights of women and minorities. To do that, though, we have to snap out of our denial. By insisting that there’s nothing the matter with Islam today, we’re sweeping the reality of our religion under the rug of Islam as an ideal, thereby absolving ourselves of responsibility for our fellow human beings, including our fellow Muslims."
Hence, if it's not your religion that we atheists are criticising, then you know what you can do about it. Petition your Pope, telling him he's a piss-poor representative when, “as God’s representative on Earth”, he tells AIDS-stricken Africa that condoms are sinful - a move which Sam Harris has described as "genocidally stupid". When the ID lobby tries to have creationism taught in the classroom, maybe you could be the first to knock at the school principal's door in protest. When a Jerry Falwell or a Ted Haggard or a friend in your congregation says that homosexuality is sin/unnatural/wrong, you could be the first to reprimand them for their homophobic discrimination. When Christian parents teach Bible stories as fact (such as Adam and Eve or the flood story), even though they are demonstrably false, then maybe you could put them right and advise them against indoctrinating their children into fairytales. Then, just maybe, we atheists might stop criticising a religion which you claim is not yours. When enough Irshad Manjis and Luther Kings rise up and change their religions from within (rather than saying “not my religion, not my problem”) then maybe we won’t have cause to complain anymore.
16. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?
Comment #124741 by oisha on February 10, 2008 at 6:23 am
A final word for Shrommer,
You might find the following of interest. I reproduced these words elsewhere on this website, but they seemed a particularly apt rejoinder to many of Shrommer's comments - and indeed to the entire subject of this article. They were written by Irshad Manji, a prominent critic of Islam and a muslim herself, who anticipated the "that's not MY religion YOU'RE criticising" argument. Manji is one of those rare moderates who recognises the part that moderates must play if religion's dangerous excesses are to be thwarted - that part begins with taking responsibility for the bad, and not only the good:
"The trouble with Islam today is that literalism is going mainstream, worldwide.
You'll want to assure me that what I'm describing isn't "true" Islam. I hope you're right. That's why I'm writing this open letter - because I believe that we Muslims are capable of being more thoughtful and humane than most of our clerics give us credit for. But for the sake of an honest discussion, I have to challenge you to come clean about the Islam you reflexively defend. Is this Islam in its real form or Islam as ideal. Communism is egalitarian as an ideal. Capitalism is fair as an ideal. The United States Constitution guarantees liberty and justice for all, as an ideal. Muslims know that the reality is very different. As people of conscience, we have to address Islam's realities too.
I think Prophet Muhammad would have embraced this distinction between the real and the ideal. When he was asked to define religion, he reportedly replied that religion is the way we conduct ourselves toward others. A fine definition - simple without being simplistic. And yet, by that definition, how we Muslims behave, not in theory but in actuality, is Islam. It also means the power is ours to restore Islam's better angels: those who care about the human rights of women and minorities. To do that, though, we have to snap out of our denial. By insisting that there's nothing the matter with Islam today, we're sweeping the reality of our religion under the rug of Islam as an ideal, thereby absolving ourselves of responsibility for our fellow human beings, including our fellow Muslims."
Hence, if it's not your religion that we atheists are criticising, then you know what you can do about it. Petition your Pope, telling him he's a piss-poor representative when, "as God's representative on Earth", he tells AIDS-stricken Africa that condoms are sinful, a move which Sam Harris has described as "genocidally stupid". When the ID lobby tries to have creationism taught in the classroom, maybe you could be the first to knock at the school principal's door in protest. When a Jerry Falwell or a Ted Haggard or a friend in your congregation says that homosexuality is sin/unnatural/wrong, you could be the first to reprimand them for their homophobic discrimination. When Christian parents teach Bible stories as fact (such as Adam and Eve or the flood story), even though they are demonstrably false, then maybe you could put them right and advise them against indoctrinating their children into fairytales. Then, just maybe, we atheists might stop criticising a religion which you claim is not yours. When enough Irshad Manjis and Luther Kings rise up and change their religions from within (rather than saying "not my religion, not my problem") then maybe we won't have cause to complain.
17. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?
Comment #124644 by oisha on February 9, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Shrommer,
I think you misunderstand Sharon's comments. She is not saying that ALL historical evidence is faith-based - she is only suggesting that the historical evidence for Jesus is insufficient.
I for one have just completed Honours in History and topped the Honours class. I have won a number of student awards and scholarships in History, and have also spent some amount of my studies in the Classics. I say this not to big-note myself, or to claim to be an expert, but I hope that it will suggest to you that I place great value in historical evidence and have some amount of ability in the subject. I am not the sort of person to refute the evidence by calling the whole historical method into question, as you seem to think is common.
Nevertheless, I consider that the historical evidence for Jesus is very poor. There is a minimum 40-year gap between Jesus's alleged resurrection and the first of the Gospels. All secular (ie. potentially unbiased) references to his existence come much later. This is not what one would expect if the son of God, the most important man to ever have walked the Earth in human history, had indeed walked the Earth and performed the feats which the Bible claims he did.
Remember that the events for which he is credited all occurred in the Roman Empire, which was notorious for its bureacracy and compulsive record-keeping. Just think of the census which supposedly drew Joseph and Mary back to Bethlehem (but which the historical evidence suggests did not occur). Isn't it a bit surprising that Jesus' resurrection didn't create a bigger stir in Rome and get recorded by at least one official? Such a record wouldn't require that the Romans themselves believed that Jesus was the son of God. If he was creating as big a stir in the Middle East as the Bible claims he was, then it's reasonable to expect that at least one person in officialdom might have noted the fact that some rebel chap called Jesus was kicking up a fuss in Jerusalem. This is not what we find to be the case.
Add to this the fact that humans played such a directly political role in selecting which Gospels were preserved in "the Bible" and which were rejected, and the historical evidence for Jesus becomes increasingly problematic.
None of this is to decisively suggest that a person called Jesus didn't exist (I could be persuaded either way), but it IS a warning that some of the claims that are made on his behalf may be overblown. I, and many others, would demand a great deal more evidence before I would ever credit Jesus with divinity or the ability to walk on water - claims for which the Bible offers the only testimony. This is not sufficient. To quote Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
The atheist does not suggest that the theist has NO evidence. And it is not a matter of theists simply reaching a different interpretation of the evidence. It is a matter of theists making claims which, objectively judged, are not justified on the basis of what evidence IS available. Any historian who claimed to believe that Apollo was personally responsible for the fall of Troy, because there was evidence for it in the Iliad, would be laughed out of the academy. And so it is with Christ.
If you want to talk about History, let's consider for a moment that people of all creeds, in all places, and all times have believed in some truely absurd things and probably thousands of divine beings. If Christians really expect anyone other than a fellow Christian to think that they are anything but foolish when they say that there is historical evidence for Jesus' divinity, then they sure better present some compelling evidence. They fail pitifully and give us no reason to think that their God is any more true than all the Zeuses, Wotans, Osirises and Athenas that are now dismissed as myth. We will treat their claims as equally absurd until they present some compelling - and I mean super shithot - evidence.
18. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?
Comment #124608 by oisha on February 9, 2008 at 10:33 pm
"It is precisely because we have faith that the universal laws will continue to be tomorrow as they are today that science is so exciting and useful to us! We cannot prove the future. We can only affirm what has happened in the past and what is happening in the present. Every prediction we make about the future has some degree of faith to it."
Once more a theist confuses religious faith with a scientist's reasonable and justified trust in evidence. Even if I were to accept that these two things are only different in degree and not in kind, I am well reminded of philosopher David Hume's words upon his death bed.
Biographer James Boswell, hoping to see how Hume's unbelief was standing up in the grim face of death, had this to say of the encounter:
"I could not but be assailed by momentary doubts while I had actually before me a man of such strong abilities and extensive inquiry dying in the persuasion of being annihilated. But I maintained my faith. I told him that I believed the Christian religion as I believed history. Said he: 'You do not believe it as you believe the Revolution.'"
Say I: Shrommer does not believe it as he believes gravity. It is obvious to anybody that these two "faiths" are of entirely different degree. Our certainties and uncertainties about each are (or should be) worlds apart.
Of course, there are people who DO claim to believe in God with the same conviction that they believe in gravity. They are either a) lying to themselves, or b) sincere, in which case they are c) dangerous. "People who are willing to believe absurdities can be pursuaded to commit atrocities."
19. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers
Comment #119087 by oisha on January 31, 2008 at 9:59 am
Oh, and last but not least, I was much vindicated to see that it's not only Dawkins who compares certain brands of religion to child abuse. Here's Bishop Spong again:
"Christian bookstores are known primarily for their anti-intellectual stance, their support of creation science in opposition to evolution, their volumes on childrearing which advocate tyrannical approaches that, in my mind, border on child abuse, their attempt to uphold the dying patterns of patriarchy, and their negativity toward homosexuality."
Ok, that's my final say. Hope you find these books as interesting as I did.
20. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers
Comment #119079 by oisha on January 31, 2008 at 9:55 am
QUOTE FROM BISHOP JOHN SHELBY SPONG (See Comment #119064)
In 1999 the New York chapter of a humanist organization presented me with their "Humanist of the Year" award. Almost immediately some of my ecclesiastical critics leaped upon that designation to suggest that I was, as they had long suspected, not really a Christian at all, but a humanist. In their minds being a humanist and being a Christian were mutually exclusive. I was amazed by this rhetoric, because it revealed that in their minds a Christian was one who was defined by a negative view of humanity. In response to this criticism I suggested that they had it all wrong. The opposite of a humanist, I insisted, is not a Christian but either an antihumanist or one who is inhumane. Neither of those latter categories would adequately describe either my personal philosophy or the Christian life. In my opinion, my critics had not embraced the fact that Christianity began with the claim that the reality of God had been experienced through the life of a particular human being. That is a grand and exhilarating claim. Can humanity be so evil, I wondered, if it is through this same humanity that God is revealed? The very way this debate has been shaped is symptomatic of the low estate into which Christianity has fallen in our day.
In the minds of my traditionalist critics, the opposite of humanism is supernaturalism. Since Christianity has been so thoroughly identified with supernaturalism, the very word humanism has become a synonym for something evil. Certainly in much of the hymnody and in many of the prayers of the Christian church the identification between humanity and evil is made obvious. To traditional Christians humanism has become a philosophy which suggests that there is an enormous chasm between the human and the divinea chasm so broad and so deep that we have almost come to think of human and divine as opposites. These traditionalists seem to think that humanism means an elevation of humanity beyond all else. They conclude that I, and others like me, believe that humanity is the highest reality there is; they hear us as saying that there is nothing beyond the limits of the human. In that definition of humanisma definition to which I certainly do not subscribethe truth of God is thought to be denied.
Somehow traditional Christians seem to believe that to denigrate humanity as broken, fallen, evil, and sinful makes the reality of the theistic God who is external to life more believable. So part of the church's defence of theism has taken the form of the denigration of the sacredness of human life. Those who define God in supernatural terms look at the human arena and see no grandeur; they see nothing but evil. It is true that evil is not hard to find in human life, but it cannot be the defining and ultimate characteristic of our humanity.
Bishop John Shelby Spong, A New Christianity for a New World: Why Traditional Faith is Dying and How a New Faith is Being Born, Harper Collins: San Francisco, 2001, pp.150-51.
21. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers
Comment #119072 by oisha on January 31, 2008 at 9:50 am
QUOTE FROM IRSHAD MANJI (See Comment #119064)
"The trouble with Islam today is that literalism is going mainstream, worldwide.
You'll want to assure me that what I'm describing isn't "true" Islam. I hope you're right. That's why I'm writing this open letterbecause I believe that we Muslims are capable of being more thoughtful and humane than most of our clerics give us credit for. But for the sake of an honest discussion, I have to challenge you to come clean about the Islam you reflexively defend. Is this Islam in its real form or Islam as ideal. Communism is egalitarian as an ideal. Capitalism is fair as an ideal. The United States Constitution guarantees liberty and justice for all, as an ideal. Muslims know that the reality is very different. As people of conscience, we have to address Islam's realities too.
I think Prophet Muhammad would have embraced this distinction between the real and the ideal. When he was asked to define religion, he reportedly replied that religion is the way we conduct ourselves toward others. A fine definitionsimple without being simplistic. And yet, by that definition, how we Muslims behave, not in theory but in actuality, is Islam. It also means the power is ours to restore Islam's better angels: those who care about the human rights of women and minorities. To do that, though, we have to snap out of our denial. By insisting that there's nothing the matter with Islam today, we're sweeping the reality of our religion under the rug of Islam as an ideal, thereby absolving ourselves of responsibilty for our fellow human beings, including our fellow Muslims."
Irshad Manji, The Trouble with Islam Today, Random House: Sydney, 2003, pp.3-4.
22. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers
Comment #119064 by oisha on January 31, 2008 at 9:44 am
RECOMMENDED READING
At the risk of interrupting these fascinating physics debates, I thought that I might be a tad adventurous and recommend the following books by believers as an alternative to TIA.
#1 - 'A New Christianity for a New World: Why Traditional Faith is Dying and How a New Faith is Being Born' by Bishop John Shelby Spong.
(His 'Christianity must Change or Die' also sounds like a promising title, as do his titles on sexuality etc.; however, I haven't yet read these, so can't comment personally.)
#2 - 'The Trouble with Islam Today: A Call for Muslim Reform' by Irshad Manji.
As their titles suggest, they're not so much apologetics as honest and critical calls for reform within their respective religions, and I found them refreshing for that very reason. I understand that both are well-known within America, but as an Australian I didn't recognise them as household names. There may be other non-American posters here that can say the same.
Both books cede so much ground to atheism that one might wonder why their authors still bother with belief at all, but to each his own, I guess. I must admit that, despite all the common arguments about religious moderates sheltering fundamentalists from criticism and promoting faith as a virtue, when I read these books I retained some hope for a future in which believers and nonbelievers can coexist and have a sensible conversation with one another (even if they disagree on the fundamentals). Surprisingly, I discovered that I could sympathise with Spong's decision to still call himself a Christian (less so, Manji's decision to remain a Muslim - but at least she compensates for her less radical theological position with more scathing criticisms of faith.)
Spong is what I'd describe a Christian pantheist (he refers to God as the Ground of All Being) and I actually find that his conception of Jesus and God may provide some amount of utility, even to atheists (or maybe not), as an organising and unifying metaphor that deals with everything from life, love and the universe to personal self-actualisation. Spong even makes the revolutionary claim (for a Christian) that the quality of evil must be incorporated as an innate attribute of the Ground of All Being.
One doesn't have to believe that the Last Days of Socrates are an actual account of real events in order to hold Socrates up as an examplar of Reason and skepticism. Ditto Spong's conception of Jesus and God when it comes to living the good life. Where I differ from Spong is that Spong maintains that his 'God' actually exists, but I differentiate between the abstract fictional metaphor and the non-fictional physical reality.
In any case, I found that both books made for rewarding reading and though I most certainly disagree with a lot of what they say, they struck me as a good way to soften up believers before we strike them with the hammer blows and dead-eye darts of Dawkins et al.
Unlike the Vox trolls, I'll even provide a couple of quotes below by way of example of what readers might expect.
23. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers
Comment #119005 by oisha on January 31, 2008 at 9:02 am
"Vox's book kicks arse!
What? You want evidence?
You'll just have to take it on Faith.
Read it yourself.
Read it.
Read it.
Read it.
Read it.
No, I won't engage in debate.
I'm just here to sell a book.
Ok, you caught me out. I haven't actually read it, but it still kicks arse, you closed-minded fools.
Now I'm going to runaway, runaway, runaway."
After posting this reduction of a troll rant in an earlier post, it suddenly struck me that if you substitute VOX'S BOOK for GOD'S BOOK, you've got an exact match for a door-to-door bible-bashing sales pitch. Go figure. Coincidence? Memetic sales strategy? Or just the intrinsic shortcomings of the religious mindset?
Perhaps it's only to be expected that a theist should try to market their book the same way that they try to market the Bible. Gideons anyone?
24. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers
Comment #118934 by oisha on January 31, 2008 at 7:35 am
SOME UNSUBSTANTIATED SUSPICIONS:
Notice how Vox's lackeys are never in the room together at the same time? Reminds me of Santa and my Dad come Christmas. And their posts essentially revert to the same tired message:
VOX'S BOOK KICKS ARSE!
WHAT? YOU WANT EVIDENCE?
YOU'LL JUST HAVE TO TAKE IT ON FAITH (LIKE GOD).
READ IT YOURSELF
READ IT
READ IT
READ IT
READ IT
NO, I WON'T ENGAGE IN DEBATE.
I'M JUST HERE TO SELL A BOOK.
OK, YOU CAUGHT ME OUT - I HAVEN'T ACTUALLY READ IT, BUT IT STILL KICKS ARSE, YOU CLOSED-MINDED FOOLS.
NOW I"M GOING TO RUNAWAY, RUNAWAY, RUNAWAY.
OR,
I'M AN ATHEIST, BUT...
VOX'S BOOK STILL KICKS ARSE
READ IT
READ IT
READ IT
(AS ABOVE)
Could it be that all these trolls are ONE AND THE SAME PERSON? It would certainly account for Pretty Lady's exagerrated persona and all her "gracious poohs". Method acting maybe? Getting into character?
At the risk of being accused of closed-mindedness, I for one WILL NOT BE READING TIA. And I refuse to do so ON PRINCIPLE.
I came to it with an open mind and gave Vox Day the opportunity to astound me with even just a single blinding pearl of wisdom. Instead he took cheap shots at Dawkins et al., made no logical argument and dispatched trolls (or troll) to incite an emotional challenge. I have lost patience. As Steve suggested earlier, had they simply said something along the lines of "this is an interesting book, you may enjoy it", they would have met with much more success. With that in mind.......
WARNING: If the Vox bus is any sort of guide, somebody has some HIGHLY VESTED INTERESTS in us reading this book and I suspect that THEY STAND TO GAIN by us doing so. I'm not sure how. Maybe it's publicity, maybe its a high hit count on their website and therefore more traffic through Google, maybe it's the promise of a publishing deal or reprint if they score so many downloads, or maybe it's just an inflated ego (this last seems plausible given the author's pretentious pseudonym). Whatever the case may be I'm now suspicious of the entire episode and can't help feeling that if I read or even download this book I'll have been somehow manipulated for Day's benefit. Consider the fact that Richard Dawkins has just been judged the #3 online personality in Britain. Given that Vox Day was a computer game designer, I suspect that he's well aware of this, and of other various ways in which he might stand to benefit from internet traffic. Is it really any surprise that a computer game designer might resort to and exploit the use of trolls? My suspicion is that he's simply trying to cash in on Dawkins's following so that he can later claim that his book has been a hit.
I'm reminded of the comment with respect to Dawkins nonparticipation in Creationist debates: "IT'LL LOOK GOOD ON YOUR CV, BUT NOT ON MINE"
I'm not normally in favour of boycotting books. The Catholic League does enough of that for everyone. But in this case I think I'll make an exception. I suggest everybody else here do the same. Vox Day has had his 15 minutes of fame - let's not give him the satisfaction of any more than that. If he wants our attention then I suggest he earn it, the hard way, by writing a good book, putting it on the market and not resorting to duplicitous sales tactics, but good ideas.
25. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers
Comment #118102 by oisha on January 30, 2008 at 10:49 am
"The second law of thermodynamics states (loosely) that systems tend to get less complicated not more. And this being true means evolution is impossible."
Hang on - maybe I was being too hasty. I think there is something in this afterall. How's this sound ;)
1. The second law of thermodynamics states (loosely) that systems tend to get less complicated, not more.
2. This does not apply to theists who make the question of God's existence more complicated by multiplying entities beyond necessity.
3. This defies the laws of physics. (It's a miracle!)
4. Therefore God exists.
QED. :P
What's that? Your not convinced? :O
Okay, let's try something else.
1. God doesn't exist.
See how much less complicated things just became? :D
Edit: RE al-rawandi's comment below - No worries, al - I understood your meaning. The above is merely my feeble attempt at a humorous (possibly not) parody of a theist's argument. I've added a few emoticons now just to be clear.
26. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers
Comment #118089 by oisha on January 30, 2008 at 10:15 am
"nordicthunder = Vox Day. Nice try buddy."
Great call! I was thinking the exact same thing. Groundless assertions, lack of evidence, precise knowledge of the publication date, claims of an early preview, potential ploy to drum up sales and publicity. nordicthunder's got Vox Day written all over him - or could it be the Son of Vox: Vox Jesus.
"The second law of thermodynamics states (loosely) that systems tend to get less complicated not more. And this being true means evolution is impossible."
Huh?
So let me get this right. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics predicts a cold death for the universe. All those stars which are large enough to do so, will collapse down to blackholes. The smaller ones will simply exhaust themselves, and all life will become extinct as a result.
And this is an argument FOR God's existence?
Hmmm, this Creator fellow is a really nice chap. Presumably he'll have Raptured all the Christians up to Heaven by then. At least us heathens can take consolation from the fact that Hell WILL freeze over eventually.
27. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers
Comment #118074 by oisha on January 30, 2008 at 9:42 am
Edit: Looks like I was beaten to the post again - but here's my 2c worth anyway.
nordicthunder,
I think you perhaps confuse a lack of openmindedness for a lack of time. For my part, I would happily read TIA and critique its arguments. However, my time is valuable and limited and there are any number of books which I would like to read, not all of them pertaining to religion and not all of them non-fiction (though I'm not sure that a book claiming God exists qualifies for that latter title either).
By dint of circumstance, I must necessarily be discerning in my choice of reading material. And this, I suspect, would be true for most posters here. No library borrower or book buyer is indiscriminately pluralistic, nor is discriminant pluralism a sign of closed-mindedness. Rather, it is a necessary reality.
There are many ways by which people determine whether a particular book might be worth the time that it takes to read it, and most of these do not actually involve reading the book itself. That's the entire point! Consider it the literary world's equivalent of natural selection, if you will. Such selection may or may not be an accurate reflection of a book's intrinsic value, but it's the best we can do in our limitations.
Some people decide to read a particular book because they've guaged the response of other readers based on reviews. Others do so on the recommendation of a friend. Some make their choice according to cover design, currency, a cursory glimpse at the contents page, a more detailed reading of the introduction, the author's past work or (in the case of older books) their historical impact.
In my case, I did indeed come to Vox Day with an open mind. I read a number of Day's other articles, and arrived at the conclusion that his existing body of work was uninspired and logically defective. Forgive me if I do not take your word for the fact that TIA does not conform to this precedent and is "logically unassailable"; however I remain sceptical.
I am not saying that I would NEVER read TIA, but I don't think it would be to my detriment if I didn't. And that really is the crux of the matter.
As with everything in matters of scepticism, the onus is not on the nonreader to justify their nonreading, the onus is on the author to persuade me, with positive evidence, that his book deserves to be read. The above interview with Day was his opportunity to convince me that I should read his book above any one of the millions of other books out there on any subject (or the many unread books on my own book shelf). To my mind his most effective strategy would have been to knock me over with some pearl of wisdom from his book. He failed pitifully.
As I said in an earlier post, if in the course of a promotional interview for any book, an author can't provide some reasonable indication of the book's actual content, and must instead resort to personal attacks, groundless assertions and shameless sensationalism, then in my book (no pun intended) that invalidates any claims he may have upon my attention.
That said, I have just spent my summer holidays reading a number of other books by believers which were quite worthy of an atheist's attention (perhaps I will list them here by way of recommendation), and C.S. Lewis's 'Mere Christianity' is at present sitting on my desk waiting to be read. I will turn to that before I turn to Vox Day, if only for the fact that C.S. Lewis has stood the test of time and is so often touted as the favorite poster boy for pop-Christian apologists. (Which should make for much more rewarding hunting.)
28. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers
Comment #117963 by oisha on January 30, 2008 at 4:49 am
Edit: having posted this I see that others have now got in while I was writing it - sorry for any repetition - but my argument stands.
rk3001,
I suggest it is you yourself who needs to take out their copy of The God Delusion again.
If you do so, you'll find that the quote you cite (p.317) is qualified by the very important inclusion of the word "arguably", which by all conventional understandings of the English language implies that Dawkins does not necessarily espouse the view he has just announced, but that he thinks a case could plausibly be made in its favour as indicated by his later comment, "it is entirely plausible that words could have a more long-lasting and damaging effect than deeds" (p.318). There is a crucial difference here.
Importantly, such qualification allows for the possibility that child abuse is not ALWAYS worse than a religious upbringing, but sometimes may be. If you'd bothered to turn over the page, you'd find that Dawkins provides anecdotal evidence of a correspondent who, by her own testimony, was more affected by fear of Hell than by the wandering hands of her priest, and then goes on to say, "the example shows that it is at least possible for psychological abuse of children to outclass physical". This seems to me a thoroughly sensible observation which is entirely consistent with what we know of mental trauma.
In short, Richard Dawkins did not say "religious upbringing IS worse than sexual child abuse" and you are wrong to claim that he did. What he said is that the religious upbringing CAN, UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, cause greater PSYCHOLOGICAL trauma than child abuse" - and for understandable reasons given the prevalence of Hell doctrine. This is not a matter of mere semantics, but of basic reading comprehension.
Dawkins's contention is not that we should treat sexual abuse as any less abhorrent, but that clergy or parents who tell children that they will go to Hell if they don't believe in God are mentally abusing their children. Dawkins's suggestion is that such parents deserve much greater condemnation than is conventionally the case, and that in some cases such condemnation should be qualitatively on a par with that accorded child rapists. It is another of Dawkins's famous exercises in consciousness-raising.
But of course, never mind me - I'm just an unintelligent atheist who's full of crap. I couldn't possibly have read The God Delusion and simply been more awake to the nuances of the English language - and indeed Dawkins actual position - than your intelligent agnostic self and Vox Day in his infinite wisdom.
29. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers
Comment #117928 by oisha on January 30, 2008 at 2:12 am
Frankus1122,
You bemoan the comments in this forum and claim that "it has already been stated that [Irrational Atheist] will be drivel and full of logical inconsistencies etc." As far as I can see, I was the only poster to have specifically used the phrasing "logically inconsistent". I can only therefore presume that you are referring, at least in part, to comments made by me.
If this is the case, you have grossly misrepresented what I said. If you care to read my posts fully, I explicitly stated that I was critiquing Vox Day's 'Case Against Science', which a previous poster made available. I did not try to refute arguments I had not read; I refuted arguments which Vox Day has already published in full on a different topic, which may or may not be featured in Irrational Atheist, but which nevertheless deserved refuting on their own merit (or lack thereof). I was not pre-empting or attempting to anticipate his arguments in Irrational Atheist.
Insofar as I had anything to say on Irrational Atheist it was that Day's 'Case Against Science' contained the glaring logical fallacies of inconsistency and major unstated premise. In addition, his interview demonstrates the further fallacies of straw man, ad hominem and outright misrepresentation. On this evidence, I do not think I am unjustified in expecting more of the same from Irrational Atheist. Nor do I consider myself unjustified for concluding that someone who has displayed little application of formal logic and is demonstrably unable to recognise logical fallacies in his own work is not the best person to write a book on the subject of fallacies in the arguments of others. This is not an argument against the arguments of his book, which will need to be evaluated on their own terms. It is a provisional judgment of Day's critical abilities, which will have some bearing on whether I do or do not choose to expend valuable time reading his book, and whether or not I would reasonably expect him to say anything which I have not heard before.
His book aside though, it is simply not enough for Day to assert that Dawkins et al. are "clowns", for him to suggest that Sam Harris is a "Parrot" and a "fraudster" who can't handle difficult concepts like elementary division, and then for him to opine, 'but if you want evidence, you'll just have to read my book when it comes out'. Such a ploy is intellectual cowardice of the worst kind, and you've fallen for it hook, line and sinker. Just because his book isn't available yet, this doesn't grant him amnesty from criticism for the many comments he has already asserted without substantiation, and he should be held accountable for them. Given the highly personal and belittling nature of his comments, Day owed it to the people he was criticizing, and to all decent standards of scholarship, to explain himself at the time of the interview. He did not do this, but instead remained mysteriously silent on the actual substance of his book. If the form of the interview did not allow even a summary explanation (which I would find very surprising), then he had a moral and intellectual responsibility to confine such comments to an appropriate medium where his claims COULD be substantiated.
Of course, it could be argued that if he did this he would not sell or circulate as many books. But if he can't achieve the same end with a reasoned statement of his book's actual content, and must instead resort to unverified personal attacks and sensationalism, then it doesn't say much for the substance of his book and I cannot see that he leaves us any cause to give him the honour of a full hearing.
30. Darwin Day (Feb 12th) E-Cards
Comment #117781 by oisha on January 29, 2008 at 3:40 pm
I agree on the "common ground" comment, bluehillside, and you make some very good points which I thoroughly agree with. I think our differences arise predominantly from differences in our intended audience. Ecards, like conventional cards, are perhaps a personal thing and what's suitable for one recipient may not be suitable for another, which perhaps suggests the need for a number of ecards employing different tactics. A multi-pronged attack, so to speak.
In any case, I thought your security fast track was a classic, so I'll reciprocate with the following sign which I dream of attaching to my front door one day:
THIS DOOR IS AN ATHEIST AND SO AM I.
NEITHER WILL RESPOND TO BIBLE BASHERS.
31. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers
Comment #117765 by oisha on January 29, 2008 at 2:50 pm
My earlier post seems to have sparked a bit of discussion, but in hindsight I'm not sure that I expressed myself clearly. I may have clouded the matter in my glibness. My argument was not so much with the premise of Day's statements regarding science/invention etc. The point which I meant to make was that Day contradicts himself. That is to say, he makes two distinct but related arguments which refute each other. The first of these is that,
1. Scientists have invented technologies which are potentially dangerous.
2. This potential was actualised during World War I, the Nazi Holocaust, the bombing of Dresden etc.
3. Therefore science and scientists are personally "culpable" for much evil and suffering in the world.
It doesn't take much to see that there are all sorts of problems with these premises and a number of major unstated premises which relate to the issue of responsibility and culpablity, but the right and wrong of them is unimportant for my purposes, since Day is not content to simply let his case rest there.
Instead, he attempts to discredit science further by suggesting that its benefits have been overstated. His second argument thus takes the following form:
1. Most inventors are not professional scientists, and vice versa.
2. Furthermore, many inventors do not arrive at their inventions via the scientific method but via "accidents combined with fortuitous observations".
3. Therefore science is only minimally responsible for many of the inventions in the world today.
AND
4. Science can claim little credit for many of the beneficial inventions in the world today.
Again, there's plenty of problems and unstated major premises here, but what Day fails to observe is that the his second argument invalidates his first argument. If his second argument is held to be correct then it also follows, in the absence of empirical data to the contrary, that the law of averages could reasonably be expected to apply and that the inverse of #4 is just as equally likely to be true: i.e. "science is only minimally responsible for many of the HARMFUL inventions in the world today".
Whether or not we agree with Day's arguments (I think they're both bogus btw), they are mutually exclusive and cannot each be true. Day is being logically inconsistent to suit a political agenda, which hardly qualifies him as an objective critic of Dawkins et al.
32. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers
Comment #117689 by oisha on January 29, 2008 at 11:35 am
It seems like you guys have got most of the bases covered with respect to Day's interview, but I must admit that I was truly astounded by Day's 'Case Against Science':
"If 'religion' is to be held culpable for the Inquisitions and the jihads, "science" is certainly no less culpable for the historical ravages of scientific socialism, the gassings of World War I, the National Socialist Holocaust, the fire-bombings of Tokyo and Dresden and the American abortion atrocity, to say nothing of the possibility of nuclear devastation as well as the inconvenient perils of global warming."
The idea that science is responsible for these atrocities is so absurd that I won't even bother to refute it. But I couldn't help laughing out loud when a few paragraphs later Day claims,
"Furthermore, the benefits of science are hugely exaggerated... Most inventors are not scientists and most scientists are not inventors... From vulcanized rubber to the microwave oven, accidents combined with fortuitous observations by non-scientists have accounted for a surprising number of advances in human knowledge, advances to which the scientific method of hypothesis and experimentation may claim no credit."
So let me get this right, science is culpable when technology is put to evil ends by genocidal fascist regimes who draw nourishment from Catholic-inspired anti-Semitism, but it gets to claim no credit for the benefits which acrue from science in improvements to healthcare and quality of life. And why? Because, according to Day, "most inventors are not scientists".
Huh?
So now scientists are responsible for crimes perpetrated by other people, for reasons of religious and racial difference, using technologies that scientists didn't even invent in the first place, while kudos goes to "accidental" inventors whose vulcanised rubber was presumably never used to line the tyres of a Nazi jeep.
Simple isn't it? Or should that be simple-minded?
Day can't possibly expect us to take him seriously when he doesn't even recognise such glaring inconsistencies in his own logic.
Then again, it's hardly surprising that Day counts the hits and ignores the misses, for isn't that such a classic feature of the fundamentalist mindset. Intercessory prayer anyone?
33. Darwin Day (Feb 12th) E-Cards
Comment #117295 by oisha on January 28, 2008 at 2:25 pm
To answer your question bluehillside, I think we need to espouse the sense and wonder of our world view AND actively seek to demolish the arguments of the faithful. But I think each strategy has a proper time and place. Perhaps I was not clear earlier and I may have given the false impression that we should avoid the religious question altogether on Darwin Day, so hopefully this will clear things up slighty.
Creationists are simply wrong, end of story, and I don't suggest that we should at all censor ourselves about creationism when it rears its ugly head. Darwin's work had monumental implications for religion and that's a fact that we can't and shouldn't tiptoe around. It deserves full mention on Darwin Day. For example, if Prof. Dawkins were to give an interview on Darwin Day, discussing the importance of Darwin's discovery, I would expect its ramifications for religion to be at the top of his list. I'm not sure, however, that the pithy confines of an e-card are the best place to properly address this achievement. To my mind Prof. Dawkins's policy of not granting Creationists the legitimacy of a formal debate is particularly sensible and it is one which I think could be effectively applied to the proposed ecards.
I certainly think that ridicule has its uses, and many a true thing was said in jest. I also think that ministers and teachers who foist demonstrable falsehoods on their congregations and students, or believers that have willfully surrendered their critical faculties, deserve our full condemnation. The former are in positions of influence and should know better and the latter are being intellectually and morally irresponsible. However, I think it's also important to be aware that many believers are themselves victims of misplaced trust, communal pressures, childhood indoctrination and scientific illiteracy (many believers simply haven't received proper instruction about natural selection, and consequently accept the default explanation provided by their parents, clergy and community even the most intelligent people can fall into the trap of informational cascades).
My chief complaint was not, therefore, with the more benign references to religion (such as those suggested by comments #116034, #114749). My chief complaint was with those which compare Christians to less evolved and innately stupid species (#114525, #114445 for example). I think it would be foolish not to expect these types of comparisons to be interpreted as particularly spiteful and even prejudiced, no matter the good humour in which they may have been intended. They certainly don't display the compassion we atheists so often claim to possess, and they seem to me nothing more than thinly veiled insults. As I said in my previous post, they smack of social Darwinism.
My understanding is that ecards are for general circulation and are supposed to be celebratory in spirit. I see no reason why we should limit our audience to the choir, and in that light I think we need to be careful not to alienate those believers who have perhaps begun the road to atheism (or at least, moderation and agnosticism), but haven't yet shook the monkey (or God) off their back completely. I have many Christian/Muslim friends, not a few of whom I'd describe as recovering creationists and I'd like to think that sending them a Darwin Day e-card would be a nice way to lend them further encouragement and positive reinforcement, but I don't particularly want to call them stupid in doing so. I'd much rather send them something which coaxes them out of their beliefs with kindness, rather than driving them reflexively back into their shells and earning me their castigation in the process.
In fact, I think a variation on #114749 would be particularly apt in that with some alteration which I haven't fully nutted out yet it could be made to demonstrate to religious recipients the comparative benefits of Darwinism over traditional religious explanations. Perhaps we could come up with some ideas that speak to believers about Darwinism and allow them to join the dots themselves. I'm a big believer in creating cognitive dissonance and I think the best way to do that is to convince people that their dissenting ideas were their own. I'm still working on a few ideas, but will be sure to report back. I'm particularly reminded of the old joke, "Where did Noah find polar bears in the Middle East?" It's a real question which fundamentalists must confront and it's one for which the only good explanation is evolution.
34. Darwin Day (Feb 12th) E-Cards
Comment #116961 by oisha on January 27, 2008 at 10:56 pm
I think Darwin Day cards are a fantastic idea but at the risk of being a party pooper I have to agree with UltravioletG and j.mills respectively when they said,
"I think 'smart alec' political comments should be avoided like the plague, they look cheap, date quickly, and don't do justice to the ideas."
"Cards should celebrate it on its own merits, not as a gloating tool [over the religious]."
I'm as irreverent as the next person, and have no qualms about making fun of religion when it's rooted in good argument or makes an effective point. I think the wise fool has an important role to play in religious dialogue, but the thing which alarms me most about some of the card suggestions so far is their depiction of religious people as less evolved mammals. Although I can see the humour in them, the logic which underpins them is clearly fallacious and devolves to nothing more than name-calling. More horrifying to me they just smack of social Darwinism.
Atheists are often accused of being rude, offensive, arrogant and having a "smarter-than-thou" attitude, and I'd be hard put to disagree on the basis of some of the above. I don't for a minute think that we should forget the implications Darwinism has for religion, but maybe we can hang up our "militant atheist" hat for the day, and remind the world of the elegance, grandeur and diversity of life which Darwinism implies (without degrading it with what Carl Sagan termed "little" Gods). It's bad enough that the ID lobby tries to introduce God into the classroom, but do we really need to send him a personal invite to Darwin's party?
35. Changing my Mind
Comment #114953 by oisha on January 23, 2008 at 9:09 am
Quoting artemisa a long way back in the thread:
"Someone just knocked on the door, guess who?. Well the Jehovah team. I told them I believe in science and the natural world and one of them responded there is science in the bible. I just told them to read some science and said good bye. I just wonder if anyone would give me some advice as to how to respond better in a fruitful way."
Something which I've dreamed of doing once I own a house is putting a sticker on the front door with the following words: "This door is an atheist and so am I. Neither will respond to Christian door knocking."
When I mention this to my (irreligious) friends and family, however, I often receive a concerned (and even accusing) expression - as though they are worried that my house should then become the target of vandals (or worse).
Even more surprising to me is the sense I get that people think that such retribution would somehow be my fault. What greater indictment of religion could there possibly be, however, when a person - even one living in a seemingly liberal democracy where religion is said to be moderate and 'not as bad as in America' (this is Australia I'm talking about) - can't even put the religious (and I might say, good humored) equivalent of a "no junk mail" sign on their door without experiencing a reasonable fear of violence.
The whole situation reminds me of the initial rush by some to condemn Salman Rushdie rather than the fundamentalists who issued the fatwa in the first place. Or the rush by some to condemn Danish cartoonists rather than the violence mongers who incited the violence in the first place.
36. That's not MY God or Religion you're criticising
Comment #81858 by oisha on October 25, 2007 at 10:00 am
Alternatively, when people say that all gods are the same god, it may quite easily be the case that they're not all that certain that the religion they were born into is the correct one, but that they're simply comforted by the thought that "someone or something is somewhere out there and I don't care what form it takes as long as I'm not alone and this isn't all there is, but presumably he's good and a good God wouldn't care what specificities I assigned to him so long as I believe in something and am a good person". But this kind of thinking just sounds as wishful as ever.
37. That's not MY God or Religion you're criticising
Comment #81853 by oisha on October 25, 2007 at 9:52 am
Of course, when I say I find such patronising self-certainty just as bad as the type that says "Your God's false", I don't mean to suggest that agnosticism is the logical position - I'm quite happy to say that I'm convinced the Christian God is false.
What I meant to imply was that there's something hypocritical about religious people who make similar claims.
At least the atheist can back up his position with well-reasoned argument. Ask a religious person why all other Gods are false and they'll stutter into silence for one of two reasons:
Either they've accepted that all other Gods are false on the basis of faith and authority, or the more savvy among them realise that their arguments of logic are just as unforgiving towards their own God.
38. That's not MY God or Religion you're criticising
Comment #81851 by oisha on October 25, 2007 at 9:42 am
I find the best response to the "they're all one God" reply is to point to the example of Catharism.
As many of you probably know, Catharism was a medieval Spanish heresy and its adherents believed that God was an evil God and had created the universe to imprison us in flesh.
Not surprisingly their practices included self-flagellation, as well as celibacy (since they didn't want to imprison further innocent souls in flesh), and vegetarianism (since they didn't want to eat anything that imprisoned other innocent souls in flesh). Somewhat amusingly, they thought it ok to eat fish, as they believed fish spontaneously procreated from water (they had an inadequate understanding of fish spawn).
In any case, the point to note is that the evil creator God of Catharism can't possibly be the all-loving creator God of conventional Christianity. The two are fundamentally opposed. Or at least, insofar as the Vatican thought the two Gods WERE the same, they regarded the Cathar account a blasphemy of the most heinous type: hence, their crusades (read slaughter) of the Cathars.
Therein lies the crux of the matter. What theists really mean when they say "they're all one God" is "My God's the true God, and other religions worship corruptions of His true image." I find such patronising self-certainty just as bad as the type that says, "You're God's false, and that's the end of the story".
However grim the proposition it seems to me that the Cathar God was a vast intellectual improvement on the Christian God. At least the Cathars didn't try to shirk the Problem of Evil with dodgy appeals to freewill, the devil, or the Wrath of God in response to human sin.
39. Science can answer how questions but only religion can answer why questions
Comment #81845 by oisha on October 25, 2007 at 9:18 am
Though it's something of an unrelated note, I thought you'd be interested to know, thirdchimpanzee, that the right-wing here in Australia ARE the Liberal (capital 'L') Government - presently under John Howard with all his stone-age policies of mandatory detention towards asylum seekers (with its associated human rights violations), refusal to allow gay marriages etc. And the SOCIAL liberals (little 'l') are the left-wing Labour Party and various minor parties such as the Greens (who are not necessarily economic liberals).
How the pendulum swings ...and how confusing it becomes keeping track of all the varied meanings aross the world.
40. I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist
Comment #81830 by oisha on October 25, 2007 at 8:46 am
Upsidedawn, I'm quite glad you missed my comment because something you said triggered a new way of thinking about it in my mind.
The courage I'd been talking about was the courage to face a LIFE without faith, which religious people would probably predict to be cold, meaningless and depressing a la the other thread. But you said something interesting. You said that "they're afraid of the consequences". I have a tendency to forget that theists actually believe in this stuff, and even in contemplating a life without God they most likely persist in the mindset that he does indeed exist. The next logical step would be for them to worry about an AFTERLIFE without faith.
So maybe what we're really dealing with here is a subtle extension of Pascal's Wager.
Maybe the theist's reasoning runs something like this:
"Hell is a really really terrible place, so if I'm going to run the risk of ending up there, and am going to abandon my belief in God - my faith in God even - then I sure as Hell (pun intended) better be confident that God doesn't exist. In fact, with all that I stand to lose by abandoning my faith I'd have to be even more certain of my atheism than I am my Christianity. It would require even greater faith for me to reject my existing faith."
Funnily enough, now that I think back, that was more like the phrasing of the argument I came across: "I think in some ways it takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a Christian".
I think it's important if we're going to overcome the emotional aspect of theistic arguments then it's important to understand the assumptions that underpin their arguments. If we are indeed dealing with a form of Pascal's Wager, or a combination of Pascal's Wager and the "life would be miserable without God" argument then that may itself be instructive.
Has anyone else here come across this argument in real-life situations and has any comments on what they thought the theist actually meant by it?
41. Science can answer how questions but only religion can answer why questions
Comment #81670 by oisha on October 25, 2007 at 2:45 am
ME: Here's a why question for you, my friendly neighbourhood theist. Why must there be an ultimate meaning or purpose to our lives?
THEIST: Because there must be!
ME: But why?
THEIST: Well, this can't be all there is!
ME: Why not?
THEIST: Because there must be more to life than this!
ME: But why?
THEIST: Because there just must be!
...and so an ad infinitum.
Does religion really provide an adequate answer to this "why" question, or isn't the only real answer that dying isn't a very fun thing to do and religious people like to think that there's something on the other side of it to make it worth all the bother. If they only had the courage to realise it, they'd see that there are many things which make death worthwhile, but there all on this side of the divide, rather than the other.
42. If you don't accept the supernatural, you obviously think life is depressing, meaningless and cold
Comment #81626 by oisha on October 25, 2007 at 1:28 am
Combining Goldy's comment I'd rephrase my response so as not to concede the theist any point:
"Look at me [with a broad beaming smile and deep belly laugh]. Do I really look unhappy to you? And even if I were unhappy, I'd rather believe something because the evidence suggests it's true than because it makes me feel good. Don't you think it's better to be sobre and depressed than happy and drunk? At least a sobre person can fix his problems with real solutions. And he can try to find ways to be happy that don't leave him with a headache in the morning."
43. If you don't accept the supernatural, you obviously think life is depressing, meaningless and cold
Comment #81603 by oisha on October 25, 2007 at 12:42 am
My experience is that such comments are a last resort for the theist. They're actually talking about the utility of belief in God rather than the truth of the belief itself. They've already made the implicit assumption that "ignorance is bliss".
And they're not really saying "YOU must live a cold, meaningless, empty and unhappy life", what they're really saying is "if I abandoned God, I think I would live a cold, meaningless, empty, and unhappy life" - somewhat like the oft-repeated "I don't know what I would've done without God in my life. He's helped me through some really tough times."
I for one trust that people can see how happy I am without me having to convince them of it. And far be it from me to try to tell others that THEY can be happy without God in their lives. I very much believe that that is indeed the case, but I very much doubt that I would convince a religious person of it, so my simple retort to such statements as these is to concede their point and suggest the following:
"I'd rather believe what's true than what makes me feel good."
Or, less diplomatically, depending on the audience:
"I'd rather be sobre and depressed than happy and drunk."
<