Atheism as grand oedipal symbolic act

I’ve read a lot of wacky reviews of Dawkins’ book, but this is so absurd I nearly choked on my coke. How about a Freudian psychoanalysis of Dawkins?

The analysis? Dawkins’ atheism is grounded in a psychological murder of the God/Father…For Dawkins, the Oedipal counter-current manifests itself not in hearing divine voices but in an unquestioning commitment to a new paternal figure/institution, namely modern science (note the element of trust in science that is necessary to make this commitment, since science alone does not disprove God/murder the Father, only makes God’s existence/Father’s survival improbable). Science is Dawkin’s adoptive Father figure now that he has done away with the old one.

Dawkins needs to write more about squid to give these fellows more fun.

Devil’s Breath? Moi?

i-cdc28a8d329a443df419e6f203e80b4a-devils_breath.jpg

People often complain that I’m too mild-mannered in my personal appearances — that they want a real fire-breather. Well, my solution arrived as a gift in the mail today: a selection of fine fire-breathing aids from
Chilestuff.com, including a spectacularly vivid t-shirt with that appropriate logo on it. Next talk I give, you should sit in the back row.

Alas, this might make Skatje cry. She likes her food bland, but I’m going to have to sneak a little of the chile relish or the hot sauce into pale, tasteless, limp food — and then she’ll look like the picture!

DonorsChoose reminder

Hey, the freethinkers are doing well with the DonorsChoose challenge to support school teachers. We’re still a bit shy of our final goal, so if you want to help show that we godless folk can be charitable, loosen those wallets and kick in a few bucks.

And if you don’t like my chosen proposals, or you’d rather not back an openly and proudly god-free endorsement, browse the leaderboard and pick one of those other sciencebloggers’choices. They’re all good. Maybe not as good as mine, but they’re trying.

Another Hovind sliming his way across the country

Kent Hovind may be rotting in jail, but his son Eric is continuing the family tradition of lying to the public. Eric Hovind is going to be here in Minnesota on 28 October,
giving a talk at the Russian Evangelical Christian Church in Shakopee. I don’t think I’ll be able to make it, but this could be interesting. Not Hovind — I understand he’s just doing his daddy’s same old patented high-speed babble with corn-pone jokes — but these new Russian evangelicals have been in the news lately, and have been exhibiting a particularly virulent strain of hate and ignorance. I know nothing about this particular Shakopee church, but I’d be curious to find out if there’s any connection to Watchmen on the Walls. If anyone goes, let me know.

Uh, and if you’re gay, you might not want to go. Just in case.

It’s all just metaphor … and toys

Weird ol’ Target is now selling talking Jesus toys. Isn’t there something in the Bible about idols? Isn’t it turning their divine prophet into a cheap gimmick, literally? It seems to me that the real blasphemies seem to emanate from the Christians themselves, rather than us atheists.

It might be a useful toy for breaking indoctrination, though, when the kiddies discover that Jesus has “Made in China” imprinted on the sole of his foot, and that they can play games that have him shacking up with Barbie. And Ken.

This is the Hitchens I like

The debate between Hitchens and McGrath is well worth listening to. Hitchens is cogent and sharp; he makes exactly the same points about the fundamental immorality of religion that he made at the FFRF convention, but in less time, and with fewer distracting digressions. He’s on fire. Of course, he also doesn’t get sucked into anti-Islamic fervor, but addresses the deplorable universal qualities of religion.

McGrath is simply awful. This is his argument in summary:

  • I was an atheist once, but I got better

  • Being religious has health benefits

  • It’s the fringe fanatics that give religion a bad name

  • Here, I have some tedious praise for Jesus that you’ve all heard before

It’s dreadful laid out like that, but it’s worse hearing him plummily drone on about it all. Even worse, Hitchens specifically asked him to state his beliefs — does he truly believe that a human sacrifice two thousand years ago relieves him of certain moral responsibilities? — and he doesn’t touch that one. All he had to offer was murky blathering.

Hitchens asked some clearly worded questions about the meaning of the central events of Christianity, and McGrath didn’t answer any of them. Clearly, the man needs to be wrestled into a corner, given one sharply worded question, and told to simply answer it … something I doubt the obfuscatory babbler can do. We saw the same thing in the outtakes from The Root of All Evil? — the reason the McGrath interview didn’t make the final version was obvious. He’s dead boring and waffly.

By the way, as it turns out, I’ve volunteered to enter a debate at the U of Minnesota on 7 February, on the compatibility of religion and science, with a Templeton-award winner, Loyal Rue. I don’t think I’m going to be as lucky as Hitchens in getting a pompous, tedious cloud of gas for an opponent.