The logical fallacy of false dilemma involves a situation in which two alternative statements are held to be the only options, when in reality there exist one or more other options which have not been considered ;)
The guy on the right kind of looks like a high version of you PZ.
Carliesays
So what you’re saying is that god has multiple personality disorder?
Well, he does have an awful lot of names. And he does seem to have some nasty mood swings – saving people, destroying people, helping someone find their car keys, sending a tsunami…
I see that PZ has chosen today to offend Satanists. Once word gets out, hordes of Satan defenders will likely comment, complaining that PZ is tarnishing Satan’s good name with the title of this blog post.
So what you’re saying is that god has multiple personality disorder?
Well, he does have an awful lot of names. And he does seem to have some nasty mood swings – saving people, destroying people, helping someone find their car keys, sending a tsunami…
The Xtian God has at least 3 know personalities – that whole father, son, and HS thing. At least that was the only way I could ever make sense of it.
Caledoniansays
I’ve never understood the implicit assumptions in cultural references like that – is the idea that being a hippy was a good thing?
Kseniyasays
LOL @ you all!
To me, the Republican God looks like… errrm… Sean Connery. (To which my Scottish ex-boyfriend’s father would say, “You see, lassie? I told ye so!”)
Well, he does have an awful lot of names.
Nine billion, I hear.
Kseniyasays
Caledonian: I don’t think the cartoon is making any such value judgements. It’s poking fun at both sides, IMO.
Caledoniansays
I don’t think the cartoon is making any such value judgements.
Look more closely. I think it’s obvious that the Republican version is intended to be more villianous than the Democrat – “inexplicable support of Israel” is also a telling ideological phrase.
Additional: if you have to choose between a Captain of Industry and a Hippy as a leader, go with the Captain. The hippies couldn’t have fed themselves without another civilization to parasitize – even an evil civilization is better than one that tears itself apart from sheer incompetence.
Kseniyasays
“More villianous” – well yes, I agree, and the Dem God is made to look more incompetent. I still say it’s a wash. ;-)
Ok, maybe not. You’re right that the Israel comment throws the thing out of balance. Surely the Dem God exhibits “consistent inexplicable support of” … something. (It’s too early in the day for me to fill in that blank with something pithy. Sigh.)
Regarding Captain of Industry vs. Captain Trips, you won’t get any argument from me.
I think the wingnut alternative is on the left side and the hippie on the right because we’re supposed to read the hippie column second (in Hebrew, the cartoon would have to be reversed). The punchline comes after the set-up, you see.
Besides, it’s long past time we junked the left-right political axis. If for no other reason than because it’s French. . . .
BlueIndependentsays
This cartoon dovetails rather nicely with my current reading of A People’s History of the United States. Without doubt, the advancement of Western civilization is rife with use of the god on the left in that image.
Re left/right – it depends which way you are facing. The way they are facing the “captain of industry” of on the right, the “hippy” on the left.
Caledoniansays
Ok, maybe not. You’re right that the Israel comment throws the thing out of balance.
Not that – the Republican’s contributions are all evil, or at least undesirable. And while I agree with the Israel comment, it’s a characteristically Leftie thing to say.
The Democrat’s contributions are all positive (except the joke about Alabama).
No, that’s intended to be positive, too, I’m sure.
Faithsays
No, that’s intended to be positive, too, I’m sure.
You WOULD say that.
Kseniyasays
> the Republican’s contributions are all evil, or at least undesirable.
Babies are undesirable? ;-)
Seriously, though: “Consequences” may be subjectively undesirable, but they’re what guide behaviors, no? Natural consequences are the natural selection of behavior. This plays off the (conservative) perception that the Right is about personal responsibility and accountability, whereas the Left is all about moral relativism and a touchy-feely If It Feels Good, Do It mindset. And I don’t think this jibe unambiguously favors the Left.
Am I thinking too much? (Or too little? heh)
blfsays
Besides, it’s long past time we junked the left-right political axis. If for no other reason than because it’s French.
(Emphasis in original.)
Well, I am in France… ;-)
And, er, except for the weed, floating rugby ball (or is that a halo?), and ying-yang-woo-woo pedant, I also happen to look sortof like the “hippy”, complete with a beard which looks like a half-eaten hedgehog and squareish glasses–not quite sure what that’s supposed to “mean”…
DaveLsays
I’ve always enjoyed P. J. O’Rourke’s prose take on this same issue:
“I have only one firm belief about the American political system, and that is this: God is a Republican and Santa Claus is a Democrat.
“God is an elderly or, at any rate, middle aged male, a stern fellow, patriarchal rather than paternal and a great believer in rules and regulations. He holds men accountable for their actions. He has little apparent concern for the material well being of the disadvantaged. He is politically connected, socially powerful and holds the mortgage on literally everything in the world. God is difficult. God is unsentimental. It is very hard to get into God’s heavenly country club.
“Santa Claus is another matter. He’s cute. He’s nonthreatening. He’s always cheerful. And he loves animals. He may know who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but he never does anything about it. He gives everyone everything they want without the thought of quid pro quo. He works hard for charities, and he’s famously generous to the poor. Santa Claus is preferable to God in every way but one: There is no such thing as Santa Claus.”
Nice to see The Pain here – be sure to visit the site and check out the “Artist’s Comments” for the strip, they’re an indispensable accompaniment to the cartoons.
The thing I love about Kreider’s work, and why I consider him the best political cartoonist working, is he’s absolutely devoid of the self-satisfaction and smug accusatory stance that typifies most left-wing cartoonists (Tom Tomorrow, Ward Sutton, etc – fellow TwinCitians will probably share my experience of opening the City Pages and seeing the exact same “joke” (usually more of a shrilly repeated talking point) repeated three or four times on the comics page [that is, when they remember to run comics at all]). Tim’s willingness to highlight his side’s defects and weaknesses (not to mention his own personal ones) is what keeps his stuff consistently funny and all the more effective as a political statement. Tim’s the truest “humanist” I know of — his humor and philosophy is ultimately about human foibles, not some disembodied set of principles or political dogma.
Be sure to browse the archives at http://www.thepaincomics.com/archives.htm and maybe buy a book while you’re at it – guaranteed to impress houseguests, amuse the cat, and keep you mostly sane after the apocalypse.
(Sorry for the multiple posts; I just now heard this on my TAL podcast, and couldn’t resist.)
Dustinsays
Caledonian, I’m curious: How many friends do you have?
Shmuelsays
“You’re right that the Israel comment throws the thing out of balance.”
Not if you consider the image on the left as classically antisemitic in the Christian tradition.
Everything old is new again.
Craigsays
“I guess I’m the Accidental Neologist: “claption”…”
Claption: the sound of the suddenly truncated audience response at the end of a sound bite from a speech that is later broadcast on a tv or news show.
No, I’m not Rich Hall, author of Sniglets.
Shmuelsays
“You’re right that the Israel comment throws the thing out of balance.”
Not if you consider the image on the left as classically antisemitic in the Christian tradition.
Everything old is new again.
stogoesays
I was going to make a snarky comment about the Kreider fan-boy dissing Tom Tomorrow and how much I hate hipsters, but the wacko troll made me lose my train of thought.
Boy I wish I had killfile at work.
Steve_Csays
Shmuel. You’re boring.
How is wall st. god not antisemitic and hippy god is?
Atheists are a Christian cultural wave? You’re an idiot.
Shmuelsays
I mean even their thought “bubbles” are in the shape of the “tablets” or torah and the Greek “Scriptures” respectively. The imagery is fairly straightforward as is my argument.
The majority of prosletyzing atheists come from Christian families. Spreading the “Word” of atheism is something that atheists from Christian backgrounds seem to enjoy. It’s unsurprisng that one of the less intellectually sophisticated of these Evangelical Atheists (Myers) prefers the Christian conception of god over the Jewish one, especially when the Jewish image is construed in an overtly negative way. It’s Christian antisemitism, adopted by atheists. And it’s very interesting.
speedwellsays
Quit your poor-me victimist kvetching, Shmoo; you make us Jews look worse than any anti-Semitic coartoon ever could.
Steve_Csays
The tablet thought bubble represents fundamentalism, and the CHRISTIANS that try to deposit massive granite sculptures of the 10 commandments in public buildings and parks… twit.
Speaking of the Ten Commandments, THIS PICTURE deserves a Pulitzer Prize for Irony. I sure wish I knew who took it, because it’s absolutely BRILLIANT! It was taken while the Supreme Court heard the Ten Commandments cases.
Steve_Csays
It’s Shmoo’s schtick.
He always comes on here claiming outspoken atheists are the equivalent of christian evangelists and therefore the same as antisemites.
He has an issue with outspoken ahtiests. I suspect he’s Isreali or a Zionist. He doesn’t seem to get some of the American cultural issues at all. But I could be wrong. He could just be a putz.
Shmuelsays
“Quit your poor-me victimist kvetching..you make us Jews look worse..”
Not quite. I don’t feel victimized. (?) It sounds like you do though. I’m not really concerned how I make “us Jews look.” But you are apparently. That’s arguably more of a victim’s mentality.
And if you are a Jew, in the cultural sense I take it, then surely you understand that my claim that a disproportionate number of Dawkins-type atheists are Christian in the cultural sense, is merely an empirical question that shouldn’t be relfexively upsetting to people who claim to appreciate the scientific method. My argument is simply that “prosletyzing atheism” has a many similarities with Christian unversalism. You are free to disagree reasonably.
However, the fact that so many do get upset, and resort to ad hominems in lieu of argument (yourself included) shoud be an embarrassment to atheists.
This cartoon isn’t that interesting. It’s typical of the “soft” antisemitism that is so common among “liberal” unitarian types. It’s Myers’ preference for “Jesus” that is interesting.
Rey Foxsays
Feh. Argumentum ad Peleum.
Shmuelsays
“Let set A = atheists. Let set B = Jews. Boolean operator: AND. Hint: overlap. Can you do the rest?”
Yes. When I was about 5 years old I decided that I would not believe in god and I still understood that I was Jewish. However, I didn’t spend the rest of my life trying to convince others that they should believe as I do. That’s what Christians do.
Steve_Csays
Wow are you that dense that you don’t that PZ is a liberal?
Is the Republican more Jewish in a way we’re not all seeing?
I don’t think so.
You see everything through those Semitic/Antisemitic glasses?
Atheist prosletyzing is in response to christian fundamentalism… but it’s not only a christian issue.
Where are you from?
Diannesays
Everyone does realize that the cartoon doesn’t say that Israel is a bad thing or that support for Israel is a bad thing, just that support for Israel no matter what it does (consistent, inexplicable support) is a bad thing. Israel has done some nasty things in its short history. No different from any other country. Criticizing it when it behaves badly is not anti-Israeli any more than criticizing the US is anti-American. Arguably, supporting a country regardless of its behavior is anti-that country: it protects the country from minor consequences but allows resentment to build, which may lead to major consequences later on. Criticism is patriotic. Unthinking, unswerving devotion is not.
Shmuelsays
I pick the bald, hook-nosed, money and Israel obsessed author of Leviticus, over the the long-haired, “socially aware” author of Beatitudes. Thanks!
Rey Foxsays
“However, I didn’t spend the rest of my life trying to convince others that they should believe as I do. ”
So stop trying to convince us not to convince others. Can’t you see you’re oppressing us?
Steve_Csays
He looks more anglo than Colonel Sanders…
He could be Dick Cheney…
The hippy-pacifist-groovy Jesus doesn’t jibe very well with the Jesus of the Apocalypse, which really is the ‘Left Behind’ Jesus. Even before that, the Jesus who tells his followers to take up swords and turn against their own families if they fail to believe is like the fundamentalist right wing Jesus, or perhaps even, on the other side, the militant left wing Liberation Theology Jesus. Investment capitalist, avenging warmonger, violent revolutionary – or hippy-dippy type? Jesus is a Rorschach test.
fredsays
It should read:
pck th bld, hk-nsd, mny nd srl bsssd thr f Lvtcs, vr th th lng-hrd, “sclly wr” thr f Bttds. Thnks!
Steve_Csays
Yep. And the cartoon is an example of that… the “democrat” god isn’t even jesus…
This is right wing versus left wing versions of god. That’s why it’s funny.
There is no one true god. Every faith adapts it to how they want to interact with the world.
And none of them are “true”,
cbutterbsays
When I was about 5 years old I decided that I would not believe in god and I still understood that I was Jewish. However, I didn’t spend the rest of my life trying to convince others that they should believe as I do. That’s what Christians do.
Look, let proposition X be “Belief in the God described in the Bible, Torah, or Koran is foolish and dangerous.” I agree with X. There’s a lot of other propositions I agree with, such as “Science is important and should be adequately funded”, “Evidence-based medicine is better than quackery”, and “U.S. Pres. Bush and Vice Pres. Cheney should be impeached and tried for war crimes.” I believe these propositions, including X, are true and of consequence. So, in what I judge to be appropriate contexts and forums (hint: this is one of them), I try to convince others to think likewise.
Do you think I shouldn’t do this? Or do you think that X is somehow intrinsically different from those other propositions and should be spoken of less openly? If so, what makes it different?
Taken at face value, you seem to be arguing that convincing others of the rightness of one’s reasoned judgments is bad per se–a dictum you transgress by, you know, trying to convince us of the rightness of your opinion.
“Come and see the violence inherent in the system!”
Colugosays
“the “democrat” god isn’t even jesus…”
True; still, the ‘warm and fuzzy’ attributes are often closely identified by liberal theologians, Gnostics, and even some secularists with Jesus and the New Testament and the “mean” violent, patriarchal stuff with Jehovah and the Old Testament Of course, many Jewish leftists identify ‘peace and social justice’ themes in the Torah – no Jesus necessary. You’re right; theological elements can selectively emphasized to justify any ideology.
Kseniyasays
Shmuel:
“You’re right that the Israel comment throws the thing out of balance.”
Not if you consider the image on the left as classically antisemitic in the Christian tradition.
It’s a political cartoon, not a religious cartoon, except in the sense that ones concept of god is shaped as much by ones world-view (which obviously includes political leanings) as by what dogma suggests it should be.
I don’t see any anti-Semitism there. And keep in mind that, historically, a large percentage of Jewish voters in America have been Democrats.
Shmuelsays
cbutterb:
Wow, a real argument, thanks. This is the critical bit I think:
“Do you think I shouldn’t do this? Or do you think that X is somehow intrinsically different from those other propositions and should be spoken of less openly? If so, what makes it different?”
Yes, I think propositions regarding religion are inherently different than non-relgious ones. I think most normal, nonfundamentalist people agree that there is difference between the statements “We can never have knowledge of something like a First Cause” and “The Big Bang created the known universe”. The first is religious, philosophical or metaphysical, the second is scientific.
Do I think you shouldn’t be permitted to speak about your religious opinions openly? Of course you should be able to! How else would I know that Evangelical Atheists think so much like Christians? By the same token, my reluctance to get swept up in “spreading” atheism, is quite Jewish don’t you think?
Leonsays
Actually, Jesus was interested in money too, at least when he told ‘The Parable of the Talents.’ Jesus the investment guru?
Didn’t you know? Jesus saves! Moses invests!
Steve_Csays
“How else would I know that Evangelical Atheists think so much like Christians? By the same token, my reluctance to get swept up in “spreading” atheism, is quite Jewish don’t you think?”
It has nothing to do with thinking like a Christian or a Jew.
Are you from Isreal? I think your misunderstanding is cultural.
But it’s impossible to know because your only references are to jews and christians.
Which is insulting considering most of us would never define ourselves as christian.
Should I respond by saying your acting actually very German? Eastern European?
Yes, I think propositions regarding religion are inherently different than non-relgious ones.
Well, right there you’ve lost most of your Pharyngula audience (including me). You have claimed not to believe in God, but insisting that logical propositions about religious subjects have special status compared to those about non-religious subjects is an inherently anti-secular position.
In addition, you’ve equated atheists to Christians to Unitarians, which is a bizarre conflation when you consider that all three belief systems are absolutely mutually contradictory.
I think part of the problem is encapsulated by your comment to another poster that you presumed he was Christian “in the cultural sense,” in the same way that you identify as Jewish in a cultural sense despite not believing in God. Guess what? There’s no such thing. There is no “Christian culture” independent of Christian theology. Nobody says, “I don’t believe in God, but I know I’m a Christian” in the way you have said “I don’t believe in God, but I know I’m a Jew.” To be sure, there are some cultural commonalities associated with particular Christian denominations — Italian or Irish Catholics, Russian Orthodox, German Lutherans, Scottish Presbyterians, etc. — but even in those cases, it has more to do with geography and ethnicity than with Christian tradition. There just is no such thing as a “Christian cultural identity” that’s shared by nonbelievers — the central point of commonality between Christians is their theology, and nothing else. So when you talk about atheists having a culturally Christian point of view, or being equivalent to Christian evangelists, you’re just making no sense.
And if you only mean that atheists are similar to Christians in terms of the zeal with which they advocate for their beliefs… well, you could say the same thing about union organizers or anti-war protesters or (some would say) Mac users or Red Sox fans. Does that make all those people — and everyone who is passionate about any idea — anti-Semitic? It’s a ridiculous suggestion.
Kseniyasays
Red Sox fans are anti-Steinbrenner. Not the same thing.
Shmuelsays
First:
“insisting that logical propositions about religious subjects have special status”
No. Not “special,” but different. I think apples and oranges are different too. But I don’t think that makes one kind more “special” in the sense that I think you are using the word.
Second:
“There is no “Christian culture” independent of Christian theology.”
This statement is so demonstrably false I simply would not know where to begin refuting it. (Have you spent any time in this country around Christmas time?) Your denial of Christian culture’s existence is evidence of soemthing.
“And if you only mean that atheists are similar to Christians in terms of the zeal with which they advocate for their beliefs..”
No. I’m talking about a specific culture of proselytization common to Evangelical Atheism and Christianity. And because you think there is no “difference” between a religious or metaphysical proposition and an empirical one, you have a lot mor ein common with religious fundamentalists than you know. It’s very ironic.
Steve_Csays
Thats the lamest argument possible.
ATHEISM is NOT a religion! Advocating for the disbelief in gods is not the same as trying to make christian belief law or a requirement for american citizenry.
That’s like saying you’re (Shmuel) acting exactly like a christian fundamentalist because you keep advocating for NOT supporting atheism as a alternative to religion.
I would say Christmas is more PAGAN than Christian.
I guess you’ve never seen the Mitzva tanks driving around new york celebrating the coming of the Moshiach.
Chrissays
Shmuel is confusing Hebrew ethnicity and culture with Judaism, a specific religion. You can’t be an atheist and a Jew without pretty serious mental illness (since it requires believing directly contradictory propositions); but you can be an atheist and a Hebrew just fine, which is presumably what Shmuel means.
Christianity isn’t so strongly associated with one particular ethnicity and culture, so I don’t know of any word for the cultural practices many Christians have in common that aren’t a part of the religion of Christianity itself. I agree with Shmuel that they do exist, but I don’t think it makes much sense to call a member of such a culture “Christian” if they’re not really a believer in Christianity.
To a certain extent this is all semantics and the True Scotsmen may descend on us at any moment, but the distinction between ethnic, cultural and religious identifiers is real, regardless of what labels you choose to apply to each group. Assigning the same label to overlapping but not identical groups is a Bad Idea. I can’t quite figure out if Shmuel’s confusion is accidental or deliberate, but either way I find it rather unhelpful.
fredsays
I think he thinks that all white people are christians regardless of their actual beliefs, which is just plain idiotic.
Shmuelsays
“You can’t be an atheist and a Jew without pretty serious mental illness”
This is simply false.
“I think he thinks that all white people are christians regardless of their actual belief”
Wuh?
fredsays
That was just the message I got. To be fair you don’t make any sense and keep calling atheists christians. It is really hard to decipher all the bullshit your spewing.
Btw do you really think that cartoon is anti-semetic or were you just satirizing a complete disconnect from reality?
fredsays
I meant to say you’re. Sorry.
fredsays
PS shmuel:
[i]However, the fact that so many do get upset, and resort to ad hominems in lieu of argument (yourself included) shoud be an embarrassment to atheists.[/i]
[i]Hmm, I suppose you mean “half-Jewish” racially. (Because the expression “half-Jewish” intended in any other manner is inherently meaningless.) Is Myers a little stupid? (Probably.)[/i]
:/
Caledoniansays
There are some deep linguistic problems, here: ‘Jew’ is used to describe both people of a certain genealogical heritage, and people who follow a particular religion. The fact that the religion in question traditionally asserts that it is passed on through the line of descent rather than being a choice complicates matters further.
Damiensays
Shmuel isn’t calling atheists Christian; he’s claiming that evangelical atheists have evangelizing habits, impulses, or assumptions as a result of their Christian background, in the sense that many of them *were* Christian before becoming atheist, and even those who weren’t might have picked up “proselytizing your beliefs is a good thing”. This isn’t a nonsensical claim, though I’m far from convinced it’s correct.
And if you are a Jew, in the cultural sense I take it, then surely you understand that my claim that a disproportionate number of Dawkins-type atheists are Christian in the cultural sense, is merely an empirical question that shouldn’t be relfexively upsetting to people who claim to appreciate the scientific method.
Indeed. So, Shmuel, since you’re actually taking a position on this empirical question, can you actually present some empirical evidence? Remember that Jews are 2% of the US population, and rather less than that worldwide, so you need to show that, say, rather more than 98% of evangelical atheists in the US (tip: Dawkins is British) are of non-Jewish background.
Unless you’re *defining* evangelical behavior as “Christian”, but that would be begging the question in a non-empirical way. It would also be blurring the distinction between being evangelical and being argumentative. Being argumentative *is* a fine Jewish tradition.
Shmuelsays
“This isn’t a nonsensical claim”
Ah. A reasonable person.
“though I’m far from convinced it’s correct.”
Me too.
“…since you’re actually taking a position on this empirical question, can you actually present some empirical evidence.”
It’s a hypothesis that can be answered emprically, though not satisfactorally by me. My position is based merely on anecdotes. (Too many, unfortuantely.)
But a poll would be nice. It would be interesting to see what percentage of Dawkins strongest supporters are Jews. Like any good scientist, I’m prepared to be wrong, but it’s certainly a testable question.
David Harmonsays
Come on guys, remember the 3.14th commandment of blog-commenting:
Don’t feed the troll!
Me, I killfiled him halfway through.
speedwellsays
I’m a Jew by descent and culture, Presbyterian by upbringing (Mom converted when I was little), atheist by choice. And upon boldly declaring my atheism to Mom’s family at her funeral, I was met with relief all round because everyone from Grandma to my third cousin was an atheist also (but didn’t dare tell me so while Mom was alive).
If I can do that, I can certainly declare to present company that I am also (horrors!) a libertarian woman. (And, to make matters worse, a vegetarian.) The point is, people are complicated. The only simple ones are simpletons like Shmuel, who apparently thinks that something that resonates with him in a negative way was meant to offend him, or like those who think (without serious examination) that the libertarian viewpoint is a horrid tissue of murderous and anarchistic nonsense.
And if Caledonian is in need of friends, I suppose he could do worse, eh?
JRsays
consistent inexplicable support for Israel
Has this guy actually read the Bible? The Biblical God:
-allowed the Philistines to slaughter King Saul and his sons;
-after the reign of only two kings (David and Solomon) caused the ancient Kingdom of Israel to be divided and wracked by civil war;
-allowed the Kingdom of Israel to be conquered by the Assyrians, who carried the Ten Tribes into slavery and oblivion;
-allowed the surviving Kingdom of Judah to be conquered by the Babylonians, who enslaved the remaining two tribes;
-permitted a restored monarchy, which was eventually swallowed up by Rome;
-allowed not one, but two, revolts against Rome to be smashed, and did nothing when his devotees killed themselves at Masada.
And this is only what he did for the ancient Kingdom of Israel – not to mention what he allowed to happen to the Jews, from the Crusades to the Holocaust.
You won’t find many Jews, religious or non-religious, who think of God’s support of Israel as consistent. Based on his past performance, the current State of Israel is wise not to rely too heavily on his support.
Caledoniansays
or like those who think (without serious examination) that the libertarian viewpoint is a horrid tissue of murderous and anarchistic nonsense.
One of the dangers of publically stating one’s conclusions is that when enough members of a subgroup state the same judgment, others will repeat it merely to fit in.
I’m afraid libertarianism is such a topic in this environment.
cbutterbsays
Yes, I think propositions regarding religion are inherently different than non-relgious ones. I think most normal, nonfundamentalist people agree that there is difference between the statements “We can never have knowledge of something like a First Cause” and “The Big Bang created the known universe”. The first is religious, philosophical or metaphysical, the second is scientific.
You’re pretending that all religious propositions are metaphysical. I’m pretty sure you know they aren’t. Metaphysical religious claims are a subset of all religious claims. Whether some guy stuck his rod into the earth and the Red Sea parted is not a metaphysical question. Nor is whether a particular tribe wandered the desert for 40 years or whether the entire Earth was flooded for 40 days. Nor even is the existence of a deity–presuming such an entity is at least in principle detectable, has properties, and has an effect on the universe. The Old Testament postulates all these things about it.
Do you think that these truth claims are in some sort of special, glass-encased category of their own? If so, are claims like “Aphrodite was born of the sea-foam” in there too?
Do I think you shouldn’t be permitted to speak about your religious opinions openly? Of course you should be able to!
Wasn’t the question. The question was ought I to do it.
Learn to recognize bloody obvious distinctions, or get used to being dismissed as a troll.
There is no “Christian culture” independent of Christian theology.
This statement is so demonstrably false I simply would not know where to begin refuting it. (Have you spent any time in this country around Christmas time?)
Not the same thing. I never claimed there weren’t aspects of Christianity (e.g., holidays and feasts) that are shared across denominations, nor have I denied that Christian practices have spread into secular society. (Note, though, as Steve_C hinted, most “Christian” holidays were coopted from preexisting pagan and/or secular festivals.)
What I am saying is that the Christian religion is not tied to any ethnicity/cultural tradition in anything like the same way that Judaism is tied to what Chris (@#76) called “Hebrew ethnicity.” There’s no ethnicity (nor any common language) that maps to “Christianity” in the same way that Jewish ethnicity (and Hebrew/Yiddish) maps to “Judaism.” Hell, even the word we use to talk about prejudice against Jews — anti-Semitism — conflates religion and race/ethnicity in a way that has no analog for Christians.
I sometimes think Jews just don’t get that ethnicity/culture and theology don’t have the same relationship for Christians (and non-Christians living in allegedly “Christian” societies) that they do for Jews. (This, BTW, is no slander against the Jews; rather, it’s a comment on the tendency, shared by all humans, to assume that your own relationship to the world is somehow universal.) In fact, regardless of arguments about whether it makes sense, plenty of people self-identify as Jews despite having utterly rejected the theology of Judaism… but nobody self-identifies as “Christian” if they don’t believe in some version or another of Christian theology. They may call themselves “former” or “lapsed” or (sardonically) “recovering” Christians, but they will never call themselves “nonreligious Christians.”
And this is why, even though you (by your own testimony) are an atheist Jew, it makes absolutely no sense to talk about “atheist Christians.”
insisting that logical propositions about religious subjects have special status
No. Not “special,” but different. I think apples and oranges are different too. But I don’t think that makes one kind more “special” in the sense that I think you are using the word.
You are either missing or (more likely, IMHO) willfully ignoring my point. A secularist will say that a proposition is a proposition is a proposition: It’s either falsifiable or it isn’t, and if it’s falsifiable, it can be tested. If you assert that propositions whose subject matter is religious/metaphysical are different in kind from those whose subject matter is “empirical,” you are inherently establishing religious propositions as a special class. You are also, it seems to me, implicitly making an a priori assertion that the religious/metaphysical is real… and that’s an assertion secularists (including most of the Pharyngula community) would reject.
Finally, I don’t see this “specific culture of proselytizing” you’re attributing to your imaginary atheist Christians. All I see is passionate advocacy… but lots of things entirely unrelated to either Christianity or atheism also inspire passionate advocacy. Treating that behavior as characteristically Christian is akin to saying that because almost all cars have windows, everything that has windows is carlike. In other words, frickin’ absurd.
David, your comment (@#85) about not feeding the troll is well taken: I have no expectation of convincing Shmuel. OTOH, I have found (as I often do) the process of turning my own inchoate thoughts into actual arguments very valuable and enjoyable. I hope it hasn’t been too awfully horrible for the rest of you.
Shmuelsays
“You’re pretending that all religious propositions are metaphysical”
No I’m not. These kinds of propositions just happen to be what I’m interested in. I’m not a Biblical literalist, and this why I made the distinction between “normal” people and fundamentalists.
“a proposition is a proposition: It’s either falsifiable or it isn’t, and if it’s falsifiable, it can be tested.”
If you can tell me how to answer the question “Why is there something instead of nothing” empirically, then I’ll gladly come over to your side. How’s that for fair?
“it makes absolutely no sense to talk about “atheist Christians.””
Tell that to all the atheist Christians I know with Christmas Trees. (And I don’t buy the “pagan” excuse. All religions have “pagan” features, including Judaism.)
“it’s a comment on the tendency, shared by all humans, to assume that your own relationship to the world is somehow universal”
Except Atheists of course, who are objective. And lapsed Christians, who have no cultural perspective outside their completely self-arrived-at beliefs.
OK then. For fun, let’s argue something like the reverse. Since you think Jewishness *is* different that Christianity, in the cultural sense, do you think it’s fair for Dawkins to “go after” Jews in the same way he does Christians? He doesn’t seem to make the same distinctions you do in his arguments. Do you think it’s ethical to risk destroying a “culture” of Judaism, or Hinduism or Budhism or Cherokee (but not Christianity of course, because there is no such thing) as part of an anti-religious enterprise. If not, how are you in a position to argue such as someone who is, self-admittedly, not part of any religious cutlure? How is Dawkins? Either way, it’s Christian Atheists (because only Christians lack a religious culture by your definition) railing against “Religion”. By defining Christianity as devoid of a cultural aspect, you are making my argument for me.
Either way, it’s Christian Atheists (because only Christians lack a religious culture by your definition) railing against “Religion”. By defining Christianity as devoid of a cultural aspect, you are making my argument for me.
Wow. There are trolls, and then there are the seriously deranged.
Did you follow that, guys? By asserting that a thing is impossible you’ve supported the argument that it exists. What an argument!
Shmuelsays
“By asserting that a thing is impossible you’ve supported the argument that it exists. What an argument!”
Not quite. BD asserted that there is no such thing as “Christian culture”. (This an absurd claim by the way.) So these “culture-less” atheists are I’m assuming, all from Christian “origins” (or something) because everyone else (people not of Christian “origins”) have a culture associated with their religious ancestory. It was BD who argues that Christianity is “special” in this way. It’s very amusing actually.
BTW, is “troll” the new “infidel” in the “Pharyngula Community” as BD calls it?
Well, up to this point I’ve been enjoying the mental exercise of trying to frame my thoughts in such a way that even a determined troll couldn’t fail to understand them, but now it’s getting tiresome. One more response, and I’m done.
Not quite. BD asserted that there is no such thing as “Christian culture”. (This an absurd claim by the way.)
What I’ve asserted is that the relationship between ethnicity/culture and theology is different for Jews than it is for Christians. More specifically, I assert that the term “Jewish” denotes both ethnic/cultural identity and theological belief, and that these two aspects of Jewishness are separable, so that it’s possible for a person to reject the latter yet continue to claim the former. (Your own testimony attests to the truth of this assertion, BTW.) I further assert that it’s not the same for Christians. All this is in response to your comment to someone else that you assumed they were “Christian in the cultural sense” in the same way that you think of yourself as “Jewish in the cultural sense.” My whole point has been to say the equation you have made between Jewish identity and Christian identity is false: “Nonreligious Jew” is a phrase that has meaning, to Jews and non-Jews alike; “nonreligious Christian” is semantically null.
None of this, BTW, is in any way equivalent to arguing that Christianity has had no impact on the larger culture. Yes, there are plenty of people who do not believe in Christian theology and yet still partake of the cultural artifacts of Christianity. They enjoy decorated evergreens and turkey dinners and they like having a special occasion to give their kids gifts and they love the music of Handel and Bach… but none of this makes them “nonreligious Christians,” anymore than my love of bagels or my occasional enjoyment of klezmer (sp?) music makes me a “nonreligious Jew.” Sometimes a tree is just a tree.
the “Pharyngula Community” as BD calls it?
Normally I wouldn’t rag on you for capitalization, but given your tendency to see Social Movements under every bed, I thought I should clarify that it’s lowercase-c “community,” as in “the people who tend to hang around (in the virtual sense) at Pharyngula.” I don’t want you to think I’m implying it’s possible to be “a Pharyngulan in the cultural sense,” or that “nonatheist Pharyngulist” is a culturally meaningful term. Can’t be too careful, after all!
Y’all have fun now, y’hear? ;^)
Shmuelsays
Bill I think you doth protest too much.
So were your parents fundamentalist Christians or what? Sorry man…
Azkyrothsays
Cal and Speedwell:
The problem I have with Libertarianism is that even when the individual Libertarian’s philosophy is more mature and intelligent than “the fantasy that society can exist without government except for the aspects of government most personally convenient to the fantasizer,” I still have yet to be convinced that a stable society could be produced by strictly following Libertarian principles, have actually seen a fairly good argument that following them would result in something akin to our government anyway, and the general attitude of both Libertarianism and individual Libertarians almost uniformly strikes me as appallingly selfish. I think this is somehting of a consensus, but I can only speak for myself.
Steve_Csays
“BTW, is “troll” the new “infidel” in the “Pharyngula Community” as BD calls it?”
No it’s what we call the type of posting you do. Alot of christian creationists come to this blog and do the same thing.
So were your parents fundamentalist Christians or what?
Hmmm… if you hadn’t waited ’til after I promised to leave the conversation, I could give you a fuller answer; as it is….
bzzzzt! Wrong!
Shmuelsays
“a fuller answer”
So your parents were brought up Christian, although non-fundamentalist, and if you had the time you’d hedge and refine your answer in respect to your personal sense of self-identity that precludes a cultural analysis of Christiandom. Got it.
p.s. I’ve never thought the “buzzer” joke was very funny or effective as a rhetorical device.
speedwellsays
So you must be a judeo christian atheist.
No, that’s me. I have no idea what he is. (grin)
I still have yet to be convinced that a stable society could be produced by strictly following Libertarian principles, have actually seen a fairly good argument that following them would result in something akin to our government anyway, and the general attitude of both Libertarianism and individual Libertarians almost uniformly strikes me as appallingly selfish.
Azkyroth, I’ve seen you comment on a lot of blogs I read, so I know you’re not a troll or a knee-jerk reactionary. I can easily understand that what you know of libertarianism and individual libertarians fits that description. I know a few like that myself. A philosophy that upholds the individual is bound to contain some (ahem) peculiar individuals.
My own standpoint, and what I understand of Caledonian’s, is something like what they used to call “classical liberalism” and is based on the principles of humanism, on individual autonomy and liberty, and on the economic theories of the Austrian School. Where I tend to disagree with the most-quoted thinkers in these areas is usually on the ground of religion and science. I take it that to be a humanist and individualist are not only not incompatible but indissoluble from each other, that both are incompatible with religion, that religion and government are two sides of the same coin and both totalitarian in design and effect, and that liberty is something that only individuals, not groups, can possess.
Morally, I hold it to be a point of honor and the sign of an ethical, decent person to alleviate pain and suffering and reward the deserving whenever possible. For a group of individuals to work together voluntarily to do compassionate and celebratory work in the community is commendable. But when church or state coerces charity from unwilling givers, I absolutely can’t call it moral. It’s no better for a poor man to steal from the rich than it is for a rich man to steal from the poor. To the extent a person is unable to control the use and disposal of themselves and their property, they are in what is commonly understood as the condition of slavery.
When people act, as they of course do, to harm the rights of other people, then ethical people should do the best they can to alleviate the harm and prevent it from happening again, subject to a decent respect for the human rights of the offenders.
Libertarianism may not offer a solution to crime and indignity, or a solution to poverty and misery, but it certainly will offer well-reasoned, rights-respecting processes to get the best results it is reasonable to expect. Crucial to this is the understanding that each and every individual case presents unique problems that have to be handled in a respectful and dignified fashion that respects the rights of both the accuser and the accused. This is an idea that we’re familiar with from history classes in school, but also from secular humanism.
Ok, that’s a sketch of some of the political ideas that I think are right. You may consider me naive. I think what it is is just trying to put together and work from basic, almost axiomatic, principles in order to get to an ideal of the most just society. What I understand of liberals in the United States and Europe leads me to believe that they do sort of the opposite; they assume a good society and then try to work backwards to see what principles underpin their assumptions.
This can all get pretty frustrating because we are all well-meaning, thinking people. I’m not trying to “convert” or “convince” anyone. To attempt to do so would be anti-reality and anti-individualistic. If I am to profess I respect and uphold you as an autonomous individual human, I’m honor-bound to prove it by inviting you to make up your own free mind.
Steve_Csays
Such a troll. No more pork rinds for you.
David Marjanovićsays
When will you guys realize that you simply represent the next cultural wave of Christianity?
Tss, tss. That was Marxism (Marx is your god, and Lenin is his prophet… no, that’s not original). Atheism goes a lot farther back than that. Have a look:
BTW, there’s an interesting Stalinist painting where it takes very little imagination to see Lenin as the Father, Stalin as the Son, and the sunshine-or-something that falls on them from behind a curtain (IIRC) as the Holy Spirit.
David Marjanovićsays
When will you guys realize that you simply represent the next cultural wave of Christianity?
Tss, tss. That was Marxism (Marx is your god, and Lenin is his prophet… no, that’s not original). Atheism goes a lot farther back than that. Have a look:
BTW, there’s an interesting Stalinist painting where it takes very little imagination to see Lenin as the Father, Stalin as the Son, and the sunshine-or-something that falls on them from behind a curtain (IIRC) as the Holy Spirit.
David Marjanovićsays
But when church or state coerces charity from unwilling givers, I absolutely can’t call it moral.
Not even if you can be convinced it’s for your own long-term self-interest?
David Marjanovićsays
But when church or state coerces charity from unwilling givers, I absolutely can’t call it moral.
Not even if you can be convinced it’s for your own long-term self-interest?
speedwellsays
Not even if you can be convinced it’s for your own long-term self-interest?
I hear you but I don’t understand the question.
Are you saying, “Would you be a willing giver if you were convinced that it was in your own long-term self-interest?” In which case I would say, “Of course.”
Or are you saying, “Would you be willing to call the coercion of charity from unwilling givers moral if you were convinced that doing so would be in your own long-term self-interest?” I can only say that it would be have to be a very convincing argument indeed to persuade me that such an injustice is somehow in my long-term best interest.
I’m not an economist, but I am familiar with some economic theory, and “time preference” is such a theory. When I was quite small, my mother taught me this idea by saying, “Well, I can give you one cookie now [an hour before dinner] so your appetite won’t be spoiled, or I can give you two after dinner when it is the proper time for dessert.” Time preference can be thought of as delayed gratification in the expectation that the reward will be greater in the longer term. A longer-term time preference is thought to be a sign of mature good judgment. When I put my savings into gold and silver four years ago, I expected that it would hold value against the dollar, which it did (in fact it better than doubled). I could have spent the money right away on a car I wanted, but by waiting four years, I have about the same number of dollars AND the car I wanted.
By forgoing, as far as I can, the shorter-term benefit of money taken from strangers and given to me by government entities in the form of goods and services, I hope to encourage and someday to enjoy the longer-term benefit of a just and free society. I can’t, of course, renounce living in society altogether, but I can look for the fairest and most honest way to deal with people personally, and try to be frugal and responsible with the goods and services I can’t avoid.
Since you persist in speculating about my personal situation, I guess I should respond in self defense:
So your parents were brought up Christian, although non-fundamentalist,
Well, sort of (though a statement this general would probably apply to a large fraction of the U.S. population, so your odds were good): My father’s family was nominally Baptist and my mother’s nominally Episcopalian, but AFAIK religion was not an important factor in either of their childhoods. During my own childhood, my parents were occasional, mostly social, churchgoers, but neither of them gave any impression of being a person of significant religious faith. I don’t recall either of them talking about religion or theology at home, positive or negative, except that my father was generally snarky about the institutional aspects of organized religion. But then, he was equally snarky about the institutional aspects of all sorts of big faceless organizations, so that really wasn’t about religion per se. To this day, I have no idea what my parents believed about Christian (or any other) theology or doctrine: It simply wasn’t an issue.
Make of that what you will, but in any case I’m not “protesting too much” about any sort of early religious indoctrination (fundamentalist or otherwise), as you so incautiously and baselessly speculated.
and if you had the time you’d hedge and refine your answer in respect to your personal sense of self-identity that precludes a cultural analysis of Christiandom.
Why would I “hedge”? This isn’t grand-jury testimony, it’s conversation. I take it as an article of (you should pardon the expression) faith that in a purely voluntary forum such as this, nobody has any real incentive not to say exactly what they mean to say. Certainly that’s what I do.
As for “cultural analysis of Christiandom” (actually, I think the term you’re looking for is “Christendom”), that’s never been my goal in this conversation, so I have no need for underhanded strategems to “preclude” it. Christianity has undoubtedly influenced all the various cultures in which it has been practiced, for good (e.g., great art and music) and ill (e.g., the whole burning-at-the-stake thing)… but various cultures is the key phrase: Christians are a diverse global population that has no broad cultural commonality except a shared belief in a core theological doctrine. People who don’t share that belief (e.g., atheists) can’t be called “Christian” in any meaningful sense… and in fact, don’t call themselves “Christian.” To the extent you think my part of this thread has been about anything other than that, you’ve been missing my point.
Now I’m really most sincerely done with this.
Shmuelsays
If you go home to visit your Christian parents for Christmas, then you are as much a Christian as many Jews are Jews.
Interestingly, not a single Jew (other than me) has posted a comment on this thread. I guess we know who does (and doesn’t) read this blog. That makes my case best I think.
Steve_Csays
Speedwell is not a jew?
If I go to a friends house on passover does that make me a jew?
Is Madonna a jew? She celebrated Purim.
I use Kosher salt when I cook. I must be a jew too.
speedwellsays
Shmuel, if your case is that we’re supposed to be anti-Semitic, then you aren’t just a fool, you’re also a liar.
Steve_Csays
I think he was trying to make some point about Jewish Atheists versus Christian Atheists…
Jews don’t come here because we repulse them with our evangelical ways.
Shmuelsays
“Shmuel, if your case is that we’re supposed to be anti-Semitic, then you aren’t just a fool, you’re also a liar.”
Anti-semitic? Perish the thought! There aren’t many Jews in Church or at Pharyngula, but that doesn’t mean that either is necessarily anti-semitic. My point, which has been made here empirically in, admittedly, a very limited, unscientific way, is that Jews don’t read Pharyngula. My larger hypothesis is that Jews aren’t as attracted to Evangelical Dawkinsian Atheism as much as people from Christian backgrounds are.
Rey Foxsays
Shmuel doesn’t have a case. See Steve’s comment #53.
Owlmirrorsays
Jews don’t come here because we repulse them with our evangelical ways.
Nah, it’s really just all the cephalopods. Oy, so much treif!
Caledoniansays
If coerced charity were really in our best interests, it likely wouldn’t need to be coerced.
There would always be people too short-sighted to understand, of course, but there’s nothing wrong with letting them suffer for their shortcomings, and they’re likely to be running the church/state anyway.
MJ Memphissays
“Do you think it’s ethical to risk destroying a “culture” of Judaism, or Hinduism or Budhism or Cherokee (but not Christianity of course, because there is no such thing) as part of an anti-religious enterprise”
Well, I can’t speak for Hinduism (I understand that, in the modern day, it does have a large ethnic element to it, although this was not the case in the past, when there were large Hindu territories outside India), but there also isn’t a Buddhist culture, and Cherokee is an ethnicity, not a religion. You could probably count adherents to traditional Cherokee religion on your fingers and toes; the vast majority are Christians and have been for some time. They are still Cherokees though.
Steve_Csays
Jews are roughly 2% of the U.S. population…
Athiest jews… as a percentage of that? who knows.
So how many jewish atheists could we expect on a “science and godlessness” blog?
Nothing has proven Schuel’s point. He just has an opinion. And a silly one at that.
The logical fallacy of false dilemma involves a situation in which two alternative statements are held to be the only options, when in reality there exist one or more other options which have not been considered ;)
Theres lots more in the archives.
Jesus or Jeezus ?
http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly050504.htm
I’ll take the one in the middle :)
So why is the
reptilewingnut alternative on the left and thelizardloony alternative on the right?http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v726/markfiend/godpeez.jpg
Anyone else see a resemblance? ;)
It’s almost like “good cop, bad cop.” There is enough woo for everyone to enjoy…
So what you’re saying is that god has multiple personality disorder?
Even so, I don’t know what that has to do with Satan working in a library.
The guy on the right kind of looks like a high version of you PZ.
So what you’re saying is that god has multiple personality disorder?
Well, he does have an awful lot of names. And he does seem to have some nasty mood swings – saving people, destroying people, helping someone find their car keys, sending a tsunami…
I see that PZ has chosen today to offend Satanists. Once word gets out, hordes of Satan defenders will likely comment, complaining that PZ is tarnishing Satan’s good name with the title of this blog post.
I thought Eric Clapton is god, not Jerry Garcia
The Xtian God has at least 3 know personalities – that whole father, son, and HS thing. At least that was the only way I could ever make sense of it.
I’ve never understood the implicit assumptions in cultural references like that – is the idea that being a hippy was a good thing?
LOL @ you all!
To me, the Republican God looks like… errrm… Sean Connery. (To which my Scottish ex-boyfriend’s father would say, “You see, lassie? I told ye so!”)
Well, he does have an awful lot of names.
Nine billion, I hear.
Caledonian: I don’t think the cartoon is making any such value judgements. It’s poking fun at both sides, IMO.
Look more closely. I think it’s obvious that the Republican version is intended to be more villianous than the Democrat – “inexplicable support of Israel” is also a telling ideological phrase.
Additional: if you have to choose between a Captain of Industry and a Hippy as a leader, go with the Captain. The hippies couldn’t have fed themselves without another civilization to parasitize – even an evil civilization is better than one that tears itself apart from sheer incompetence.
“More villianous” – well yes, I agree, and the Dem God is made to look more incompetent. I still say it’s a wash. ;-)
Ok, maybe not. You’re right that the Israel comment throws the thing out of balance. Surely the Dem God exhibits “consistent inexplicable support of” … something. (It’s too early in the day for me to fill in that blank with something pithy. Sigh.)
Regarding Captain of Industry vs. Captain Trips, you won’t get any argument from me.
blf:
I think the wingnut alternative is on the left side and the hippie on the right because we’re supposed to read the hippie column second (in Hebrew, the cartoon would have to be reversed). The punchline comes after the set-up, you see.
Besides, it’s long past time we junked the left-right political axis. If for no other reason than because it’s French. . . .
This cartoon dovetails rather nicely with my current reading of A People’s History of the United States. Without doubt, the advancement of Western civilization is rife with use of the god on the left in that image.
Wow. It’s amazing how seriously folks seem to be taking this goofy little comic. You all are in serious need of a Bahamavention.
Re left/right – it depends which way you are facing. The way they are facing the “captain of industry” of on the right, the “hippy” on the left.
Not that – the Republican’s contributions are all evil, or at least undesirable. And while I agree with the Israel comment, it’s a characteristically Leftie thing to say.
The Democrat’s contributions are all positive (except the joke about Alabama).
No, that’s intended to be positive, too, I’m sure.
You WOULD say that.
> the Republican’s contributions are all evil, or at least undesirable.
Babies are undesirable? ;-)
Seriously, though: “Consequences” may be subjectively undesirable, but they’re what guide behaviors, no? Natural consequences are the natural selection of behavior. This plays off the (conservative) perception that the Right is about personal responsibility and accountability, whereas the Left is all about moral relativism and a touchy-feely If It Feels Good, Do It mindset. And I don’t think this jibe unambiguously favors the Left.
Am I thinking too much? (Or too little? heh)
(Emphasis in original.)
Well, I am in France… ;-)
And, er, except for the weed, floating rugby ball (or is that a halo?), and ying-yang-woo-woo pedant, I also happen to look sortof like the “hippy”, complete with a beard which looks like a half-eaten hedgehog and squareish glasses–not quite sure what that’s supposed to “mean”…
I’ve always enjoyed P. J. O’Rourke’s prose take on this same issue:
“I have only one firm belief about the American political system, and that is this: God is a Republican and Santa Claus is a Democrat.
“God is an elderly or, at any rate, middle aged male, a stern fellow, patriarchal rather than paternal and a great believer in rules and regulations. He holds men accountable for their actions. He has little apparent concern for the material well being of the disadvantaged. He is politically connected, socially powerful and holds the mortgage on literally everything in the world. God is difficult. God is unsentimental. It is very hard to get into God’s heavenly country club.
“Santa Claus is another matter. He’s cute. He’s nonthreatening. He’s always cheerful. And he loves animals. He may know who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but he never does anything about it. He gives everyone everything they want without the thought of quid pro quo. He works hard for charities, and he’s famously generous to the poor. Santa Claus is preferable to God in every way but one: There is no such thing as Santa Claus.”
Of course, I don’t believe either exists…
Great ‘toon. God seems to be hanging out in the funny papers lately – New ‘Toon
Hey, people. Behind every successful man is a woman!
Tooth fairy, Madonna, or Pele?
My bet’s on Pele.
Who says the Tooth Fairy is a chick?
Any good Hippie would tell you that YOU are God. At least after a couple of hits.
We’re all God, man.
Hey, who melted the toaster?
BTW, all those who think they know what this cartoon means – or should mean – need to read the artist’s statement.
http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly070307a.htm
Nice to see The Pain here – be sure to visit the site and check out the “Artist’s Comments” for the strip, they’re an indispensable accompaniment to the cartoons.
The thing I love about Kreider’s work, and why I consider him the best political cartoonist working, is he’s absolutely devoid of the self-satisfaction and smug accusatory stance that typifies most left-wing cartoonists (Tom Tomorrow, Ward Sutton, etc – fellow TwinCitians will probably share my experience of opening the City Pages and seeing the exact same “joke” (usually more of a shrilly repeated talking point) repeated three or four times on the comics page [that is, when they remember to run comics at all]). Tim’s willingness to highlight his side’s defects and weaknesses (not to mention his own personal ones) is what keeps his stuff consistently funny and all the more effective as a political statement. Tim’s the truest “humanist” I know of — his humor and philosophy is ultimately about human foibles, not some disembodied set of principles or political dogma.
Be sure to browse the archives at http://www.thepaincomics.com/archives.htm and maybe buy a book while you’re at it – guaranteed to impress houseguests, amuse the cat, and keep you mostly sane after the apocalypse.
Whereas any good science fiction fan (who may or may not also be a hippie) would tell you that thou art god!
Waiting is, after all. ;^)
PS: It’s neither Jerry Garcia nor Eric Claption. Everybody knows that “Todd is Godd”!
I guess I’m the Accidental Neologist: “claption” ought to be the word for something: It cries out for definition.
Eric Clapton, OTOH, is pretty well defined, I think. [sigh]
Rodd! Todd! This is God!
I’ll take the rich Jew banker on the left.
But of course it’s no surprise that Evangelical Atheists prefer Jesus and the “New Testament.” Keep spreading the “Good News” boys!
When will you guys realize that you simply represent the next cultural wave of Christianity?
According to last week’s episode of This American Life, the tooth fairy is actually Ronnie Loberfeld, Rachel Loberfeld’s dad. Who knew, eh?
(Sorry for the multiple posts; I just now heard this on my TAL podcast, and couldn’t resist.)
Caledonian, I’m curious: How many friends do you have?
“You’re right that the Israel comment throws the thing out of balance.”
Not if you consider the image on the left as classically antisemitic in the Christian tradition.
Everything old is new again.
“I guess I’m the Accidental Neologist: “claption”…”
Claption: the sound of the suddenly truncated audience response at the end of a sound bite from a speech that is later broadcast on a tv or news show.
No, I’m not Rich Hall, author of Sniglets.
“You’re right that the Israel comment throws the thing out of balance.”
Not if you consider the image on the left as classically antisemitic in the Christian tradition.
Everything old is new again.
I was going to make a snarky comment about the Kreider fan-boy dissing Tom Tomorrow and how much I hate hipsters, but the wacko troll made me lose my train of thought.
Boy I wish I had killfile at work.
Shmuel. You’re boring.
How is wall st. god not antisemitic and hippy god is?
Atheists are a Christian cultural wave? You’re an idiot.
I mean even their thought “bubbles” are in the shape of the “tablets” or torah and the Greek “Scriptures” respectively. The imagery is fairly straightforward as is my argument.
The majority of prosletyzing atheists come from Christian families. Spreading the “Word” of atheism is something that atheists from Christian backgrounds seem to enjoy. It’s unsurprisng that one of the less intellectually sophisticated of these Evangelical Atheists (Myers) prefers the Christian conception of god over the Jewish one, especially when the Jewish image is construed in an overtly negative way. It’s Christian antisemitism, adopted by atheists. And it’s very interesting.
Quit your poor-me victimist kvetching, Shmoo; you make us Jews look worse than any anti-Semitic coartoon ever could.
The tablet thought bubble represents fundamentalism, and the CHRISTIANS that try to deposit massive granite sculptures of the 10 commandments in public buildings and parks… twit.
It’s Christian antisemitism, adopted by atheists. And it’s very interesting.
Oh, dear. Let’s review sets, Shmuel! Let set A = atheists. Let set B = Jews. Boolean operator: AND. Hint: overlap. Can you do the rest?
Who says the Tooth Fairy is a chick?
Pele says. I wouldn’t mess wid’ it. ;-)
How can mere clever comments and cool pop-culture references hope to compete with serious anger and kneejerk dogmatism?
Dog forbid we should have a pleasantly funny conversation about a frickin’ cartoon, eh?
Oy!!
Let set A = atheists. Let set B = Jews. Boolean operator: AND. Hint: overlap. Can you do the rest?
Even worse… let A = atheists, B = Jews, and C = born-again Christians. Boolean operator AND. (Points at self.)
Speaking of the Ten Commandments, THIS PICTURE deserves a Pulitzer Prize for Irony. I sure wish I knew who took it, because it’s absolutely BRILLIANT! It was taken while the Supreme Court heard the Ten Commandments cases.
It’s Shmoo’s schtick.
He always comes on here claiming outspoken atheists are the equivalent of christian evangelists and therefore the same as antisemites.
He has an issue with outspoken ahtiests. I suspect he’s Isreali or a Zionist. He doesn’t seem to get some of the American cultural issues at all. But I could be wrong. He could just be a putz.
“Quit your poor-me victimist kvetching..you make us Jews look worse..”
Not quite. I don’t feel victimized. (?) It sounds like you do though. I’m not really concerned how I make “us Jews look.” But you are apparently. That’s arguably more of a victim’s mentality.
And if you are a Jew, in the cultural sense I take it, then surely you understand that my claim that a disproportionate number of Dawkins-type atheists are Christian in the cultural sense, is merely an empirical question that shouldn’t be relfexively upsetting to people who claim to appreciate the scientific method. My argument is simply that “prosletyzing atheism” has a many similarities with Christian unversalism. You are free to disagree reasonably.
However, the fact that so many do get upset, and resort to ad hominems in lieu of argument (yourself included) shoud be an embarrassment to atheists.
This cartoon isn’t that interesting. It’s typical of the “soft” antisemitism that is so common among “liberal” unitarian types. It’s Myers’ preference for “Jesus” that is interesting.
Feh. Argumentum ad Peleum.
“Let set A = atheists. Let set B = Jews. Boolean operator: AND. Hint: overlap. Can you do the rest?”
Yes. When I was about 5 years old I decided that I would not believe in god and I still understood that I was Jewish. However, I didn’t spend the rest of my life trying to convince others that they should believe as I do. That’s what Christians do.
Wow are you that dense that you don’t that PZ is a liberal?
Is the Republican more Jewish in a way we’re not all seeing?
I don’t think so.
You see everything through those Semitic/Antisemitic glasses?
Atheist prosletyzing is in response to christian fundamentalism… but it’s not only a christian issue.
Where are you from?
Everyone does realize that the cartoon doesn’t say that Israel is a bad thing or that support for Israel is a bad thing, just that support for Israel no matter what it does (consistent, inexplicable support) is a bad thing. Israel has done some nasty things in its short history. No different from any other country. Criticizing it when it behaves badly is not anti-Israeli any more than criticizing the US is anti-American. Arguably, supporting a country regardless of its behavior is anti-that country: it protects the country from minor consequences but allows resentment to build, which may lead to major consequences later on. Criticism is patriotic. Unthinking, unswerving devotion is not.
I pick the bald, hook-nosed, money and Israel obsessed author of Leviticus, over the the long-haired, “socially aware” author of Beatitudes. Thanks!
“However, I didn’t spend the rest of my life trying to convince others that they should believe as I do. ”
So stop trying to convince us not to convince others. Can’t you see you’re oppressing us?
He looks more anglo than Colonel Sanders…
He could be Dick Cheney…
or even…
a General of the Confederate Army…
The hippy god looks kinda like Gerry Garcia…
or Allen Ginsburg!
So which one looks more “jewish”.
I live in Williamsburg… it doesn’t get alot more Jewish than than that.
And the LAST thing I saw was a “jew” in that comparison.
Actually, Jesus was interested in money too, at least when he told ‘The Parable of the Talents.’ Jesus the investment guru?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Talents
The hippy-pacifist-groovy Jesus doesn’t jibe very well with the Jesus of the Apocalypse, which really is the ‘Left Behind’ Jesus. Even before that, the Jesus who tells his followers to take up swords and turn against their own families if they fail to believe is like the fundamentalist right wing Jesus, or perhaps even, on the other side, the militant left wing Liberation Theology Jesus. Investment capitalist, avenging warmonger, violent revolutionary – or hippy-dippy type? Jesus is a Rorschach test.
It should read:
pck th bld, hk-nsd, mny nd srl bsssd thr f Lvtcs, vr th th lng-hrd, “sclly wr” thr f Bttds. Thnks!
Yep. And the cartoon is an example of that… the “democrat” god isn’t even jesus…
This is right wing versus left wing versions of god. That’s why it’s funny.
There is no one true god. Every faith adapts it to how they want to interact with the world.
And none of them are “true”,
Look, let proposition X be “Belief in the God described in the Bible, Torah, or Koran is foolish and dangerous.” I agree with X. There’s a lot of other propositions I agree with, such as “Science is important and should be adequately funded”, “Evidence-based medicine is better than quackery”, and “U.S. Pres. Bush and Vice Pres. Cheney should be impeached and tried for war crimes.” I believe these propositions, including X, are true and of consequence. So, in what I judge to be appropriate contexts and forums (hint: this is one of them), I try to convince others to think likewise.
Do you think I shouldn’t do this? Or do you think that X is somehow intrinsically different from those other propositions and should be spoken of less openly? If so, what makes it different?
Taken at face value, you seem to be arguing that convincing others of the rightness of one’s reasoned judgments is bad per se–a dictum you transgress by, you know, trying to convince us of the rightness of your opinion.
“Come and see the violence inherent in the system!”
“the “democrat” god isn’t even jesus…”
True; still, the ‘warm and fuzzy’ attributes are often closely identified by liberal theologians, Gnostics, and even some secularists with Jesus and the New Testament and the “mean” violent, patriarchal stuff with Jehovah and the Old Testament Of course, many Jewish leftists identify ‘peace and social justice’ themes in the Torah – no Jesus necessary. You’re right; theological elements can selectively emphasized to justify any ideology.
Shmuel:
I don’t. Sorry. He’s modeled after J.P.Morgan and smells like Gordon Gekko.
It’s a political cartoon, not a religious cartoon, except in the sense that ones concept of god is shaped as much by ones world-view (which obviously includes political leanings) as by what dogma suggests it should be.
I don’t see any anti-Semitism there. And keep in mind that, historically, a large percentage of Jewish voters in America have been Democrats.
cbutterb:
Wow, a real argument, thanks. This is the critical bit I think:
“Do you think I shouldn’t do this? Or do you think that X is somehow intrinsically different from those other propositions and should be spoken of less openly? If so, what makes it different?”
Yes, I think propositions regarding religion are inherently different than non-relgious ones. I think most normal, nonfundamentalist people agree that there is difference between the statements “We can never have knowledge of something like a First Cause” and “The Big Bang created the known universe”. The first is religious, philosophical or metaphysical, the second is scientific.
Do I think you shouldn’t be permitted to speak about your religious opinions openly? Of course you should be able to! How else would I know that Evangelical Atheists think so much like Christians? By the same token, my reluctance to get swept up in “spreading” atheism, is quite Jewish don’t you think?
Didn’t you know? Jesus saves! Moses invests!
“How else would I know that Evangelical Atheists think so much like Christians? By the same token, my reluctance to get swept up in “spreading” atheism, is quite Jewish don’t you think?”
It has nothing to do with thinking like a Christian or a Jew.
Are you from Isreal? I think your misunderstanding is cultural.
But it’s impossible to know because your only references are to jews and christians.
Which is insulting considering most of us would never define ourselves as christian.
Should I respond by saying your acting actually very German? Eastern European?
Well, right there you’ve lost most of your Pharyngula audience (including me). You have claimed not to believe in God, but insisting that logical propositions about religious subjects have special status compared to those about non-religious subjects is an inherently anti-secular position.
In addition, you’ve equated atheists to Christians to Unitarians, which is a bizarre conflation when you consider that all three belief systems are absolutely mutually contradictory.
I think part of the problem is encapsulated by your comment to another poster that you presumed he was Christian “in the cultural sense,” in the same way that you identify as Jewish in a cultural sense despite not believing in God. Guess what? There’s no such thing. There is no “Christian culture” independent of Christian theology. Nobody says, “I don’t believe in God, but I know I’m a Christian” in the way you have said “I don’t believe in God, but I know I’m a Jew.” To be sure, there are some cultural commonalities associated with particular Christian denominations — Italian or Irish Catholics, Russian Orthodox, German Lutherans, Scottish Presbyterians, etc. — but even in those cases, it has more to do with geography and ethnicity than with Christian tradition. There just is no such thing as a “Christian cultural identity” that’s shared by nonbelievers — the central point of commonality between Christians is their theology, and nothing else. So when you talk about atheists having a culturally Christian point of view, or being equivalent to Christian evangelists, you’re just making no sense.
And if you only mean that atheists are similar to Christians in terms of the zeal with which they advocate for their beliefs… well, you could say the same thing about union organizers or anti-war protesters or (some would say) Mac users or Red Sox fans. Does that make all those people — and everyone who is passionate about any idea — anti-Semitic? It’s a ridiculous suggestion.
Red Sox fans are anti-Steinbrenner. Not the same thing.
First:
“insisting that logical propositions about religious subjects have special status”
No. Not “special,” but different. I think apples and oranges are different too. But I don’t think that makes one kind more “special” in the sense that I think you are using the word.
Second:
“There is no “Christian culture” independent of Christian theology.”
This statement is so demonstrably false I simply would not know where to begin refuting it. (Have you spent any time in this country around Christmas time?) Your denial of Christian culture’s existence is evidence of soemthing.
“And if you only mean that atheists are similar to Christians in terms of the zeal with which they advocate for their beliefs..”
No. I’m talking about a specific culture of proselytization common to Evangelical Atheism and Christianity. And because you think there is no “difference” between a religious or metaphysical proposition and an empirical one, you have a lot mor ein common with religious fundamentalists than you know. It’s very ironic.
Thats the lamest argument possible.
ATHEISM is NOT a religion! Advocating for the disbelief in gods is not the same as trying to make christian belief law or a requirement for american citizenry.
That’s like saying you’re (Shmuel) acting exactly like a christian fundamentalist because you keep advocating for NOT supporting atheism as a alternative to religion.
I would say Christmas is more PAGAN than Christian.
I guess you’ve never seen the Mitzva tanks driving around new york celebrating the coming of the Moshiach.
Shmuel is confusing Hebrew ethnicity and culture with Judaism, a specific religion. You can’t be an atheist and a Jew without pretty serious mental illness (since it requires believing directly contradictory propositions); but you can be an atheist and a Hebrew just fine, which is presumably what Shmuel means.
Christianity isn’t so strongly associated with one particular ethnicity and culture, so I don’t know of any word for the cultural practices many Christians have in common that aren’t a part of the religion of Christianity itself. I agree with Shmuel that they do exist, but I don’t think it makes much sense to call a member of such a culture “Christian” if they’re not really a believer in Christianity.
To a certain extent this is all semantics and the True Scotsmen may descend on us at any moment, but the distinction between ethnic, cultural and religious identifiers is real, regardless of what labels you choose to apply to each group. Assigning the same label to overlapping but not identical groups is a Bad Idea. I can’t quite figure out if Shmuel’s confusion is accidental or deliberate, but either way I find it rather unhelpful.
I think he thinks that all white people are christians regardless of their actual beliefs, which is just plain idiotic.
“You can’t be an atheist and a Jew without pretty serious mental illness”
This is simply false.
“I think he thinks that all white people are christians regardless of their actual belief”
Wuh?
That was just the message I got. To be fair you don’t make any sense and keep calling atheists christians. It is really hard to decipher all the bullshit your spewing.
Btw do you really think that cartoon is anti-semetic or were you just satirizing a complete disconnect from reality?
I meant to say you’re. Sorry.
PS shmuel:
[i]However, the fact that so many do get upset, and resort to ad hominems in lieu of argument (yourself included) shoud be an embarrassment to atheists.[/i]
[i]Hmm, I suppose you mean “half-Jewish” racially. (Because the expression “half-Jewish” intended in any other manner is inherently meaningless.) Is Myers a little stupid? (Probably.)[/i]
:/
There are some deep linguistic problems, here: ‘Jew’ is used to describe both people of a certain genealogical heritage, and people who follow a particular religion. The fact that the religion in question traditionally asserts that it is passed on through the line of descent rather than being a choice complicates matters further.
Shmuel isn’t calling atheists Christian; he’s claiming that evangelical atheists have evangelizing habits, impulses, or assumptions as a result of their Christian background, in the sense that many of them *were* Christian before becoming atheist, and even those who weren’t might have picked up “proselytizing your beliefs is a good thing”. This isn’t a nonsensical claim, though I’m far from convinced it’s correct.
And if you are a Jew, in the cultural sense I take it, then surely you understand that my claim that a disproportionate number of Dawkins-type atheists are Christian in the cultural sense, is merely an empirical question that shouldn’t be relfexively upsetting to people who claim to appreciate the scientific method.
Indeed. So, Shmuel, since you’re actually taking a position on this empirical question, can you actually present some empirical evidence? Remember that Jews are 2% of the US population, and rather less than that worldwide, so you need to show that, say, rather more than 98% of evangelical atheists in the US (tip: Dawkins is British) are of non-Jewish background.
Unless you’re *defining* evangelical behavior as “Christian”, but that would be begging the question in a non-empirical way. It would also be blurring the distinction between being evangelical and being argumentative. Being argumentative *is* a fine Jewish tradition.
“This isn’t a nonsensical claim”
Ah. A reasonable person.
“though I’m far from convinced it’s correct.”
Me too.
“…since you’re actually taking a position on this empirical question, can you actually present some empirical evidence.”
It’s a hypothesis that can be answered emprically, though not satisfactorally by me. My position is based merely on anecdotes. (Too many, unfortuantely.)
But a poll would be nice. It would be interesting to see what percentage of Dawkins strongest supporters are Jews. Like any good scientist, I’m prepared to be wrong, but it’s certainly a testable question.
Come on guys, remember the 3.14th commandment of blog-commenting:
Don’t feed the troll!
Me, I killfiled him halfway through.
I’m a Jew by descent and culture, Presbyterian by upbringing (Mom converted when I was little), atheist by choice. And upon boldly declaring my atheism to Mom’s family at her funeral, I was met with relief all round because everyone from Grandma to my third cousin was an atheist also (but didn’t dare tell me so while Mom was alive).
If I can do that, I can certainly declare to present company that I am also (horrors!) a libertarian woman. (And, to make matters worse, a vegetarian.) The point is, people are complicated. The only simple ones are simpletons like Shmuel, who apparently thinks that something that resonates with him in a negative way was meant to offend him, or like those who think (without serious examination) that the libertarian viewpoint is a horrid tissue of murderous and anarchistic nonsense.
And if Caledonian is in need of friends, I suppose he could do worse, eh?
consistent inexplicable support for Israel
Has this guy actually read the Bible? The Biblical God:
-allowed the Philistines to slaughter King Saul and his sons;
-after the reign of only two kings (David and Solomon) caused the ancient Kingdom of Israel to be divided and wracked by civil war;
-allowed the Kingdom of Israel to be conquered by the Assyrians, who carried the Ten Tribes into slavery and oblivion;
-allowed the surviving Kingdom of Judah to be conquered by the Babylonians, who enslaved the remaining two tribes;
-permitted a restored monarchy, which was eventually swallowed up by Rome;
-allowed not one, but two, revolts against Rome to be smashed, and did nothing when his devotees killed themselves at Masada.
And this is only what he did for the ancient Kingdom of Israel – not to mention what he allowed to happen to the Jews, from the Crusades to the Holocaust.
You won’t find many Jews, religious or non-religious, who think of God’s support of Israel as consistent. Based on his past performance, the current State of Israel is wise not to rely too heavily on his support.
One of the dangers of publically stating one’s conclusions is that when enough members of a subgroup state the same judgment, others will repeat it merely to fit in.
I’m afraid libertarianism is such a topic in this environment.
You’re pretending that all religious propositions are metaphysical. I’m pretty sure you know they aren’t. Metaphysical religious claims are a subset of all religious claims. Whether some guy stuck his rod into the earth and the Red Sea parted is not a metaphysical question. Nor is whether a particular tribe wandered the desert for 40 years or whether the entire Earth was flooded for 40 days. Nor even is the existence of a deity–presuming such an entity is at least in principle detectable, has properties, and has an effect on the universe. The Old Testament postulates all these things about it.
Do you think that these truth claims are in some sort of special, glass-encased category of their own? If so, are claims like “Aphrodite was born of the sea-foam” in there too?
Wasn’t the question. The question was ought I to do it.
Learn to recognize bloody obvious distinctions, or get used to being dismissed as a troll.
Not the same thing. I never claimed there weren’t aspects of Christianity (e.g., holidays and feasts) that are shared across denominations, nor have I denied that Christian practices have spread into secular society. (Note, though, as Steve_C hinted, most “Christian” holidays were coopted from preexisting pagan and/or secular festivals.)
What I am saying is that the Christian religion is not tied to any ethnicity/cultural tradition in anything like the same way that Judaism is tied to what Chris (@#76) called “Hebrew ethnicity.” There’s no ethnicity (nor any common language) that maps to “Christianity” in the same way that Jewish ethnicity (and Hebrew/Yiddish) maps to “Judaism.” Hell, even the word we use to talk about prejudice against Jews — anti-Semitism — conflates religion and race/ethnicity in a way that has no analog for Christians.
I sometimes think Jews just don’t get that ethnicity/culture and theology don’t have the same relationship for Christians (and non-Christians living in allegedly “Christian” societies) that they do for Jews. (This, BTW, is no slander against the Jews; rather, it’s a comment on the tendency, shared by all humans, to assume that your own relationship to the world is somehow universal.) In fact, regardless of arguments about whether it makes sense, plenty of people self-identify as Jews despite having utterly rejected the theology of Judaism… but nobody self-identifies as “Christian” if they don’t believe in some version or another of Christian theology. They may call themselves “former” or “lapsed” or (sardonically) “recovering” Christians, but they will never call themselves “nonreligious Christians.”
And this is why, even though you (by your own testimony) are an atheist Jew, it makes absolutely no sense to talk about “atheist Christians.”
You are either missing or (more likely, IMHO) willfully ignoring my point. A secularist will say that a proposition is a proposition is a proposition: It’s either falsifiable or it isn’t, and if it’s falsifiable, it can be tested. If you assert that propositions whose subject matter is religious/metaphysical are different in kind from those whose subject matter is “empirical,” you are inherently establishing religious propositions as a special class. You are also, it seems to me, implicitly making an a priori assertion that the religious/metaphysical is real… and that’s an assertion secularists (including most of the Pharyngula community) would reject.
Finally, I don’t see this “specific culture of proselytizing” you’re attributing to your imaginary atheist Christians. All I see is passionate advocacy… but lots of things entirely unrelated to either Christianity or atheism also inspire passionate advocacy. Treating that behavior as characteristically Christian is akin to saying that because almost all cars have windows, everything that has windows is carlike. In other words, frickin’ absurd.
David, your comment (@#85) about not feeding the troll is well taken: I have no expectation of convincing Shmuel. OTOH, I have found (as I often do) the process of turning my own inchoate thoughts into actual arguments very valuable and enjoyable. I hope it hasn’t been too awfully horrible for the rest of you.
“You’re pretending that all religious propositions are metaphysical”
No I’m not. These kinds of propositions just happen to be what I’m interested in. I’m not a Biblical literalist, and this why I made the distinction between “normal” people and fundamentalists.
“a proposition is a proposition: It’s either falsifiable or it isn’t, and if it’s falsifiable, it can be tested.”
If you can tell me how to answer the question “Why is there something instead of nothing” empirically, then I’ll gladly come over to your side. How’s that for fair?
“it makes absolutely no sense to talk about “atheist Christians.””
Tell that to all the atheist Christians I know with Christmas Trees. (And I don’t buy the “pagan” excuse. All religions have “pagan” features, including Judaism.)
“it’s a comment on the tendency, shared by all humans, to assume that your own relationship to the world is somehow universal”
Except Atheists of course, who are objective. And lapsed Christians, who have no cultural perspective outside their completely self-arrived-at beliefs.
OK then. For fun, let’s argue something like the reverse. Since you think Jewishness *is* different that Christianity, in the cultural sense, do you think it’s fair for Dawkins to “go after” Jews in the same way he does Christians? He doesn’t seem to make the same distinctions you do in his arguments. Do you think it’s ethical to risk destroying a “culture” of Judaism, or Hinduism or Budhism or Cherokee (but not Christianity of course, because there is no such thing) as part of an anti-religious enterprise. If not, how are you in a position to argue such as someone who is, self-admittedly, not part of any religious cutlure? How is Dawkins? Either way, it’s Christian Atheists (because only Christians lack a religious culture by your definition) railing against “Religion”. By defining Christianity as devoid of a cultural aspect, you are making my argument for me.
Get your t-shirts here:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,20,Atheists-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins
Wow. There are trolls, and then there are the seriously deranged.
Did you follow that, guys? By asserting that a thing is impossible you’ve supported the argument that it exists. What an argument!
“By asserting that a thing is impossible you’ve supported the argument that it exists. What an argument!”
Not quite. BD asserted that there is no such thing as “Christian culture”. (This an absurd claim by the way.) So these “culture-less” atheists are I’m assuming, all from Christian “origins” (or something) because everyone else (people not of Christian “origins”) have a culture associated with their religious ancestory. It was BD who argues that Christianity is “special” in this way. It’s very amusing actually.
BTW, is “troll” the new “infidel” in the “Pharyngula Community” as BD calls it?
Well, up to this point I’ve been enjoying the mental exercise of trying to frame my thoughts in such a way that even a determined troll couldn’t fail to understand them, but now it’s getting tiresome. One more response, and I’m done.
What I’ve asserted is that the relationship between ethnicity/culture and theology is different for Jews than it is for Christians. More specifically, I assert that the term “Jewish” denotes both ethnic/cultural identity and theological belief, and that these two aspects of Jewishness are separable, so that it’s possible for a person to reject the latter yet continue to claim the former. (Your own testimony attests to the truth of this assertion, BTW.) I further assert that it’s not the same for Christians. All this is in response to your comment to someone else that you assumed they were “Christian in the cultural sense” in the same way that you think of yourself as “Jewish in the cultural sense.” My whole point has been to say the equation you have made between Jewish identity and Christian identity is false: “Nonreligious Jew” is a phrase that has meaning, to Jews and non-Jews alike; “nonreligious Christian” is semantically null.
None of this, BTW, is in any way equivalent to arguing that Christianity has had no impact on the larger culture. Yes, there are plenty of people who do not believe in Christian theology and yet still partake of the cultural artifacts of Christianity. They enjoy decorated evergreens and turkey dinners and they like having a special occasion to give their kids gifts and they love the music of Handel and Bach… but none of this makes them “nonreligious Christians,” anymore than my love of bagels or my occasional enjoyment of klezmer (sp?) music makes me a “nonreligious Jew.” Sometimes a tree is just a tree.
Normally I wouldn’t rag on you for capitalization, but given your tendency to see Social Movements under every bed, I thought I should clarify that it’s lowercase-c “community,” as in “the people who tend to hang around (in the virtual sense) at Pharyngula.” I don’t want you to think I’m implying it’s possible to be “a Pharyngulan in the cultural sense,” or that “nonatheist Pharyngulist” is a culturally meaningful term. Can’t be too careful, after all!
Y’all have fun now, y’hear? ;^)
Bill I think you doth protest too much.
So were your parents fundamentalist Christians or what? Sorry man…
Cal and Speedwell:
The problem I have with Libertarianism is that even when the individual Libertarian’s philosophy is more mature and intelligent than “the fantasy that society can exist without government except for the aspects of government most personally convenient to the fantasizer,” I still have yet to be convinced that a stable society could be produced by strictly following Libertarian principles, have actually seen a fairly good argument that following them would result in something akin to our government anyway, and the general attitude of both Libertarianism and individual Libertarians almost uniformly strikes me as appallingly selfish. I think this is somehting of a consensus, but I can only speak for myself.
“BTW, is “troll” the new “infidel” in the “Pharyngula Community” as BD calls it?”
No it’s what we call the type of posting you do. Alot of christian creationists come to this blog and do the same thing.
So you must be a judeo christian atheist.
Hmmm… if you hadn’t waited ’til after I promised to leave the conversation, I could give you a fuller answer; as it is….
bzzzzt! Wrong!
“a fuller answer”
So your parents were brought up Christian, although non-fundamentalist, and if you had the time you’d hedge and refine your answer in respect to your personal sense of self-identity that precludes a cultural analysis of Christiandom. Got it.
p.s. I’ve never thought the “buzzer” joke was very funny or effective as a rhetorical device.
So you must be a judeo christian atheist.
No, that’s me. I have no idea what he is. (grin)
I still have yet to be convinced that a stable society could be produced by strictly following Libertarian principles, have actually seen a fairly good argument that following them would result in something akin to our government anyway, and the general attitude of both Libertarianism and individual Libertarians almost uniformly strikes me as appallingly selfish.
Azkyroth, I’ve seen you comment on a lot of blogs I read, so I know you’re not a troll or a knee-jerk reactionary. I can easily understand that what you know of libertarianism and individual libertarians fits that description. I know a few like that myself. A philosophy that upholds the individual is bound to contain some (ahem) peculiar individuals.
My own standpoint, and what I understand of Caledonian’s, is something like what they used to call “classical liberalism” and is based on the principles of humanism, on individual autonomy and liberty, and on the economic theories of the Austrian School. Where I tend to disagree with the most-quoted thinkers in these areas is usually on the ground of religion and science. I take it that to be a humanist and individualist are not only not incompatible but indissoluble from each other, that both are incompatible with religion, that religion and government are two sides of the same coin and both totalitarian in design and effect, and that liberty is something that only individuals, not groups, can possess.
Morally, I hold it to be a point of honor and the sign of an ethical, decent person to alleviate pain and suffering and reward the deserving whenever possible. For a group of individuals to work together voluntarily to do compassionate and celebratory work in the community is commendable. But when church or state coerces charity from unwilling givers, I absolutely can’t call it moral. It’s no better for a poor man to steal from the rich than it is for a rich man to steal from the poor. To the extent a person is unable to control the use and disposal of themselves and their property, they are in what is commonly understood as the condition of slavery.
When people act, as they of course do, to harm the rights of other people, then ethical people should do the best they can to alleviate the harm and prevent it from happening again, subject to a decent respect for the human rights of the offenders.
Libertarianism may not offer a solution to crime and indignity, or a solution to poverty and misery, but it certainly will offer well-reasoned, rights-respecting processes to get the best results it is reasonable to expect. Crucial to this is the understanding that each and every individual case presents unique problems that have to be handled in a respectful and dignified fashion that respects the rights of both the accuser and the accused. This is an idea that we’re familiar with from history classes in school, but also from secular humanism.
Ok, that’s a sketch of some of the political ideas that I think are right. You may consider me naive. I think what it is is just trying to put together and work from basic, almost axiomatic, principles in order to get to an ideal of the most just society. What I understand of liberals in the United States and Europe leads me to believe that they do sort of the opposite; they assume a good society and then try to work backwards to see what principles underpin their assumptions.
This can all get pretty frustrating because we are all well-meaning, thinking people. I’m not trying to “convert” or “convince” anyone. To attempt to do so would be anti-reality and anti-individualistic. If I am to profess I respect and uphold you as an autonomous individual human, I’m honor-bound to prove it by inviting you to make up your own free mind.
Such a troll. No more pork rinds for you.
Tss, tss. That was Marxism (Marx is your god, and Lenin is his prophet… no, that’s not original). Atheism goes a lot farther back than that. Have a look:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carvaka
BTW, there’s an interesting Stalinist painting where it takes very little imagination to see Lenin as the Father, Stalin as the Son, and the sunshine-or-something that falls on them from behind a curtain (IIRC) as the Holy Spirit.
Tss, tss. That was Marxism (Marx is your god, and Lenin is his prophet… no, that’s not original). Atheism goes a lot farther back than that. Have a look:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carvaka
BTW, there’s an interesting Stalinist painting where it takes very little imagination to see Lenin as the Father, Stalin as the Son, and the sunshine-or-something that falls on them from behind a curtain (IIRC) as the Holy Spirit.
Not even if you can be convinced it’s for your own long-term self-interest?
Not even if you can be convinced it’s for your own long-term self-interest?
Not even if you can be convinced it’s for your own long-term self-interest?
I hear you but I don’t understand the question.
Are you saying, “Would you be a willing giver if you were convinced that it was in your own long-term self-interest?” In which case I would say, “Of course.”
Or are you saying, “Would you be willing to call the coercion of charity from unwilling givers moral if you were convinced that doing so would be in your own long-term self-interest?” I can only say that it would be have to be a very convincing argument indeed to persuade me that such an injustice is somehow in my long-term best interest.
I’m not an economist, but I am familiar with some economic theory, and “time preference” is such a theory. When I was quite small, my mother taught me this idea by saying, “Well, I can give you one cookie now [an hour before dinner] so your appetite won’t be spoiled, or I can give you two after dinner when it is the proper time for dessert.” Time preference can be thought of as delayed gratification in the expectation that the reward will be greater in the longer term. A longer-term time preference is thought to be a sign of mature good judgment. When I put my savings into gold and silver four years ago, I expected that it would hold value against the dollar, which it did (in fact it better than doubled). I could have spent the money right away on a car I wanted, but by waiting four years, I have about the same number of dollars AND the car I wanted.
By forgoing, as far as I can, the shorter-term benefit of money taken from strangers and given to me by government entities in the form of goods and services, I hope to encourage and someday to enjoy the longer-term benefit of a just and free society. I can’t, of course, renounce living in society altogether, but I can look for the fairest and most honest way to deal with people personally, and try to be frugal and responsible with the goods and services I can’t avoid.
Since you persist in speculating about my personal situation, I guess I should respond in self defense:
Well, sort of (though a statement this general would probably apply to a large fraction of the U.S. population, so your odds were good): My father’s family was nominally Baptist and my mother’s nominally Episcopalian, but AFAIK religion was not an important factor in either of their childhoods. During my own childhood, my parents were occasional, mostly social, churchgoers, but neither of them gave any impression of being a person of significant religious faith. I don’t recall either of them talking about religion or theology at home, positive or negative, except that my father was generally snarky about the institutional aspects of organized religion. But then, he was equally snarky about the institutional aspects of all sorts of big faceless organizations, so that really wasn’t about religion per se. To this day, I have no idea what my parents believed about Christian (or any other) theology or doctrine: It simply wasn’t an issue.
Make of that what you will, but in any case I’m not “protesting too much” about any sort of early religious indoctrination (fundamentalist or otherwise), as you so incautiously and baselessly speculated.
Why would I “hedge”? This isn’t grand-jury testimony, it’s conversation. I take it as an article of (you should pardon the expression) faith that in a purely voluntary forum such as this, nobody has any real incentive not to say exactly what they mean to say. Certainly that’s what I do.
As for “cultural analysis of Christiandom” (actually, I think the term you’re looking for is “Christendom”), that’s never been my goal in this conversation, so I have no need for underhanded strategems to “preclude” it. Christianity has undoubtedly influenced all the various cultures in which it has been practiced, for good (e.g., great art and music) and ill (e.g., the whole burning-at-the-stake thing)… but various cultures is the key phrase: Christians are a diverse global population that has no broad cultural commonality except a shared belief in a core theological doctrine. People who don’t share that belief (e.g., atheists) can’t be called “Christian” in any meaningful sense… and in fact, don’t call themselves “Christian.” To the extent you think my part of this thread has been about anything other than that, you’ve been missing my point.
Now I’m really most sincerely done with this.
If you go home to visit your Christian parents for Christmas, then you are as much a Christian as many Jews are Jews.
Interestingly, not a single Jew (other than me) has posted a comment on this thread. I guess we know who does (and doesn’t) read this blog. That makes my case best I think.
Speedwell is not a jew?
If I go to a friends house on passover does that make me a jew?
Is Madonna a jew? She celebrated Purim.
I use Kosher salt when I cook. I must be a jew too.
Shmuel, if your case is that we’re supposed to be anti-Semitic, then you aren’t just a fool, you’re also a liar.
I think he was trying to make some point about Jewish Atheists versus Christian Atheists…
Jews don’t come here because we repulse them with our evangelical ways.
“Shmuel, if your case is that we’re supposed to be anti-Semitic, then you aren’t just a fool, you’re also a liar.”
Anti-semitic? Perish the thought! There aren’t many Jews in Church or at Pharyngula, but that doesn’t mean that either is necessarily anti-semitic. My point, which has been made here empirically in, admittedly, a very limited, unscientific way, is that Jews don’t read Pharyngula. My larger hypothesis is that Jews aren’t as attracted to Evangelical Dawkinsian Atheism as much as people from Christian backgrounds are.
Shmuel doesn’t have a case. See Steve’s comment #53.
Nah, it’s really just all the cephalopods. Oy, so much treif!
If coerced charity were really in our best interests, it likely wouldn’t need to be coerced.
There would always be people too short-sighted to understand, of course, but there’s nothing wrong with letting them suffer for their shortcomings, and they’re likely to be running the church/state anyway.
“Do you think it’s ethical to risk destroying a “culture” of Judaism, or Hinduism or Budhism or Cherokee (but not Christianity of course, because there is no such thing) as part of an anti-religious enterprise”
Well, I can’t speak for Hinduism (I understand that, in the modern day, it does have a large ethnic element to it, although this was not the case in the past, when there were large Hindu territories outside India), but there also isn’t a Buddhist culture, and Cherokee is an ethnicity, not a religion. You could probably count adherents to traditional Cherokee religion on your fingers and toes; the vast majority are Christians and have been for some time. They are still Cherokees though.
Jews are roughly 2% of the U.S. population…
Athiest jews… as a percentage of that? who knows.
So how many jewish atheists could we expect on a “science and godlessness” blog?
Nothing has proven Schuel’s point. He just has an opinion. And a silly one at that.