I’m a little late to this tea party, since Jason Rosenhouse and Larry Moran have already trampled on the biscuits and kicked over the teakettle, but I have to register my disagreement with this
polite and sincere article by Jake Young. It’s got several elements that bug me badly.
Andrew Brown suggests that we shouldn’t suppose that religious belief is irrational, and I’m going to have to agree in part with him. I think theology is actually an exercise in reason — it is an activity that has engaged some of the greatest minds of the ages, and it is a sophisticated and elaborate logical edifice. It is a towering skyscraper constructed of finely honed girders of deductive logic, and I can appreciate how so many people respect it and admire it and want to protect it. I can also see how those who have dedicated much effort to working closely on the craftmanship of the structure are aghast at the idea that anyone should fail to see the work of the mind invested in it.
I see that Matt Nisbet has organized a panel for the AAAS meetings, in which he has picked a squad of people sympathetic to religion to ‘argue’ that “scientists must adopt a language that emphasizes shared values and has broad appeal, avoiding the pitfall of seeming to condescend to fellow citizens, or alienating them by attacking their religious beliefs”, and he doesn’t have a single person on the panel that might actually challenge them on that recommendation to muzzle the godless. He’s also presenting a paper on “The New Atheism and the Public Image of Science,” and we all know precisely how competent he is on that topic. Unless you’re one of those god-soaked apologists who welcomes a chance to nod approvingly at yet more whining about bad ol’ atheists, that session sounds like a real snooze. We already know what they’re going to conclude.
Remind me to show no mercy.
Massachusetts has a law on the books that could have gotten me in trouble: Chapter 272, Section 36. Blasphemy.
Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.
Blake Stacey and the Reveres missed their opportunity to turn me in last time I was in their state … although, come to think of it, we were probably more like a gang of outlaws together.
Here’s another online petition you can sign — this one is to censure Kathy Griffin’s censorship. Go ahead and sign, although I’m beginning to wonder if the reason people aren’t marching in the streets and fending off flying teargas canisters and roaring angrily in person at the bad guys is that they’re too damned busy filling out all these forms on their computers, instead.
Maybe I need to create a new category here: “futile, impotent political posturing” or something. But at least it feels a little bit good.
(via Greg Laden)
(This article is also available on Edge, along with some other rebuttals to and affirmations of Haidt’s piece.)
Jonathan Haidt has a complicated article on moral psychology and the misunderstanding of religion on Edge. I’m going to give it a mixed review here. The first part, on moral psychology, is fascinating and a good read that I think clarifies a few ideas about morality. The second part, though, where he tries to apply his insights about morality to the New Atheists*, fails badly. I can see where he has thought deeply about morality, but unfortunately, he hasn’t thought clearly about the New Atheism (and perhaps that isn’t entirely his fault. We’re “New”, after all, and I don’t think the structure and goals of these New Atheists have quite gelled yet.)
A football player, Kevin Everett, suffered serious spinal cord trauma in a game the other day. That’s tragic, but the impressive part of the story is that he may recover to some degree thanks to advances in treatment, and most surprising, this comment from a consulting neurosurgeon:
“I don’t know if I would call it a miracle. I would call it a spectacular example of what people can do,” Green said. “To me, it’s like putting the first man on the moon or splitting the atom. We’ve shown that if the right treatment is given to people who have a catastrophic injury that they could walk away from it.”
No miracles, just hard work and fast action and science. Sounds like the right answer to me.
And what a sweet review it is. There are points on which I disagree with Hitchens (as there are with Dawkins, too, of course), but I agree that the book is an excellent contribution to the ongoing evolution of secular thought.
I wonder if one of the factors that is making everyone consider this movement the “New Atheism” is a confusion of cause and effect. The cause, the advancement of outspoken atheism, is the same old idea; the effect is different, because we don’t have just one Ingersoll who could be marginalized and humored because he was mostly alone, we have a growing core of literate and uncompromising atheists who can reinforce each others’ message, leading to greater and greater gains. Hitchens and Dawkins, despite differences in politics and perspectives, can find common cause in one thing, at least, and will gladly work together to promote it. And everywhere new groups supporting secularism are springing up and encouraging discussion and criticism of religion.
If I were a follower of one of the Abrahamic religions, I’d be worried. The opposition is growing bolder, and their religious belief relies on acceptance of authority — and that is being challenged and weakened.
Everyone go say howdy to The Society of Non-Theists at Purdue University, a brand new student freethought group. They’re popping up everywhere!
Some local godless heathens got mentioned in the Mankato Free Press, in an article titled “Becoming atheist akin to finding religion”. It highlights August Berkshire of Minnesota Atheists and an attorney, Jim Manahan, who say pretty much the exact opposite of what the title suggests. The article itself is good and explains a little bit about how one comes to abandon religion, but I suspect the title is an example of an editor doing some editorializing.
Here’s some useful local information from the Minnesota Atheists, too: A brief history of disbelief is being broadcast next week in the Twin Cities. Check the website for specific times.
We also have a couple of distinguished speakers coming to the big city: Steve Pinker on the 20th of September (Skatje will probably go “oooh” and tell me I have to take her), and Ian McKellen will be speaking in October (Skatje might just go “squeee!” and tell me to take her to that one, too.)
Oh, and big news: the Twin Cities will be hosting the American Atheists National Convention on March 21-23, 2008. I shall have to be there.
