Children of the enlightenment

Revere makes a bunch of good points in his Sunday Sermonette. One is the sheer insanity of current American politics:

Enlightenment thinking is taken for granted by modern Europeans, so it’s no surprise they are aghast when the leaders of a 21st century power think Divine Guidance is a good reason for exercising overwhelming power over its own and other peoples.

And another is the importance of secularism and reason in any Democratic nation.

Democracy without rationality — or in my terms, Enlightenment values — is a hollow promise, or worse, mob rule.

Religious values are intrinsically autocratic and irrational, relying on ignorance for their propagation, and are therefore anti-democratic.

Slice it, Occam!

It’s a little bit of an oversimplification of the history of atheism, but it’s funny anyway…and the diagram for religious history is also grossly simplified.

i-178b228d76bae162e147b7ea3363293c-occamsrazor.jpg

People have actually tried to argue to me that science is so complicated, but “god” is simpler and should be the preferred explanation…but isn’t “no god” even simpler than “god”?

It’s taken over 80 years to recognize this sound advice

Timothy Sandefur has an excellent quote from H.L. Mencken on how we ought to be responding to creationists.

This actual conflict is joined, and it is the height of absurdity for the…compromisers to seek to evade it with soft words. That conflict was not begun by science. It did not start with an invasion of the proper field of theological speculation by scientific raiders. It started with an invasion of the field of science by theological raiders. Now that it is on, it must be pressed vigorously from the scientific side, and without any flabby tenderness for theological susceptibilities. A defensive war is not enough; there must be a forthright onslaught upon the theological citadel, and every effort must be made to knock it down. For so long as it remains a stronghold, there will be no security for sound sense among us, and little for common decency. So long as it may be used as a recruiting-station and rallying-point for the rabble, science will have to submit to incessant forays, and the same forays will be directed against every sort of rational religion. The latter danger is not unobserved by the more enlightened theologians. They are well aware that, facing the Fundamentalists, they must either destroy or be destroyed. It is to be hoped that men of science will perceive the same plain fact, and so give over their vain effort to stay the enemy with weasel words.

Mencken sure was right — his prediction came true. It’s the 21st century. Let’s finally get around to demolishing the old superstitions.

The atheist marketing failure

i-eef56586941942f5fde8c59bc6601f14-materialist.jpg

Darn it, here’s the atheist problem: we’re not easily commercialized, with nothing for the corporate world to sink their hooks into. Someone has noticed.

Look for atheist perfume and you’ll be looking for eternity. You won’t find the works of Bertrand Russell packaged like the latest issue of Self or Cosmo, as the publishing company Thomas Nelson does with the Bible. (“Becoming is the complete New Testament in magazine format, but it wouldn’t be a culture ‘zine if it didn’t address men, beauty, fitness and food!”) Look for the atheist equivalent to Christian yo-yos and Christian neckties and you will come up as empty-handed as Mother Teresa passing the plate at Christopher Hitchens’ dinner table.

No doubt the thought of atheist lip balm and atheist jelly beans is hard to reconcile for many freethinkers–one of the virtues of atheism is that not every aspect of one’s life has to be yoked to some clingy deity who feels totally left out if you don’t include Him in everything you do. Plus, there’s simply the logical disconnect: What do jelly beans have to do with atheism? Why not stick with books, rational arguments, reason?

I guess we need a money angle to line up the capitalists to back us up. Hmmm. Can we market some plastic bubble packaging containing a vacuum as an action figure?

Have a jolly godless Christmas, all!

Albert Mohler never disappoints. If you want a peek at the smug, ignorant heart of modern American Christianity, the weekly columns of the president of the Souther Baptist Theological Seminary are good places to start. In his latest effort, he expresses surprise that atheists might enjoy the Christmas holidays. He’s positively baffled that Richard Dawkins admits sharing in the traditions of his culture.

The thought of Richard Dawkins singing any carols with explicit Christian content is difficult to hold — unless the Oxford professor intends to sing of a faith he does not profess.

[Read more…]

You mean I-35 doesn’t dispense magical cures?

Remember that bizarre video from Pat Robertson that claimed I-35 was a holy highway? One element featured there was a cheerful (ex-?)gay man who claimed to have been “cured” in one of the Purity Sieges the Christians put on.

It turns out that the story wasn’t quite as beautiful as it was portrayed. The fellow was bipolar, was deprived of his medicine, put through a hellish harrowing instead of treatment, and was eventually kicked out of the “gay cure” program as a failure. The poor guy was simply manipulated for propaganda purposes by these Christianist fanatics.

Ha-haa, England!

All you Brits who pointed and laughed at our village idiot who built a major Creation “Museum” in Kentucky are going to get your comeuppance: Lancashire is about to get a “giant Christian theme park that will champion the book of Genesis and make a multi-media case that God created the world in seven days.”

We’re pointing and laughing ourselves now, but I assure you — we also feel your pain, and there are tears in our eyes.

Padian interview

If you’ve got an hour free, this interview with Kevin Padian is a pleasant listen. The interviewer is a bit of a bore, but Padian is always an intelligent conversationalist — I’d like to have seen a more aggressive counter to some of the silly stuff brought up by the interviewer, but this was not an antagonistic situation so I can also see why the discussion goes in the direction it does. There were a lot of places where I would have said, “Padian is exactly right, but…” — but then I think I’m just intrinsically crankier.

Well, there is a part about halfway through where he says the role of chance is negligible that I would take strong exception to…