I’m an angry atheist. I admit it. In fact, I’m even proud of it. There are some things in this world that deserve no response other than unabashed, righteous anger, after all. (And that does not even come close to an exhaustive list.)
This may be the best response to people challenging my anger response.
What is supposed to be a review of a completely different book brings us the latest attack on Richard Dawkins’s book, The God Delusion, written by Salley Vickers, and she only proves herself to be an utter idiot.
John Cornwell’s mouthpiece is a likeable seraph, who follows the dictum of G. K. Chesterton that angels fly “because they take themselves lightlyâ€. Cornwell clearly believes, as I do, that angels are not wispy, winged beings in ethereal nightgowns, but something far more subtle and profound: archetypal images that dramatise the invisible realities. As such, they can act as symbols for the formless elements of physics; but also for the creative imagination.
It takes some serious chutzpah to write pseudo-intellectual garbage like that, but at least it sounds like Ms. Vickers may be writing about Cornwell’s book, not Dawkins’s.
The seraph begins by politely nailing Dawkins’s first sleight of hand which, as loads of people have now pointed out, dishonestly bundles all religious belief and practice into one crude bag that supposedly equals fanaticism. … It is child’s play to denounce a subject by pointing to the myriad ways in which it may be misapplied; misuse and misapplication are rife in all areas of human understanding: politics, science, education, medicine, religion. But it is faulty logic to conclude that this is necessarily the fault of the set of ideas being traduced.
This is like shooting fish in a barrel. First, in what way is religion like any of the other “areas of human understanding” Ms. Vickers mentions? Religion is, fundamentally, the creation, analysis, and application of made-up ideas that are not verifiable, falsifiable, or provable. Since it is nothing more than pulling assertions out of one’s ass, it can literally be used to assert that anything is true, even contradictions. Despite Vickers’s assertion to the contrary, Dawkins’s makes a point to distinguish moderated religion from religious fanaticism—and then to point out why moderated religion is just as, if not more dangerous than its fanatical blood brother: Moderated religion, in its moral muddiness and slipshod approach to truth, is the ultimate launching pad for religious fanaticism. And in any case, there is really no difference between a “moderated” adoption of asinine, unprovable bullshit and a fanatical adoption of the same. I can claim that it’s okay to believe that Poseidon is responsible for the world’s troubles, and that we must pray to him for forgiveness, but since I have abandoned reason with this claim, why is it any more unreasonable for someone else to claim that we should kill all coastal dwellers because they anger Poseidon’s dominance of the seas?
His account of the Bible is equally undiscriminating. For a start, only religious nutcases take the Creation story literally[.]
Really? By what standard does Vickers judge these people to be “nutcases”? Their assertion that the earth is 6,000 years old is no more unreasonable or illogical than the idea that God exists at all. There is absolutely no evidence for either.
[I]t is perfectly respectable to “pick and choose†when reading the Bible, something that Dawkins takes Christians to task for.
Really? By what standard does Vickers pick and choose between arbitrary, unprovable, untestable assertions? By her own sense of morality, I would guess. It’s certainly not from any sense of morality that religion teaches—or from any sense of reason and logic that science teaches. These are points that Dawkins makes time and again in The God Delusion. They are directed at the “moderately” religious, as Vickers appears to be, and I can only guess that she is a bit defensive at the light he shines on the illogic of her and her “moderate” ilk.
Those who think that not knowing is safer and more attractive than its opposite should treat themselves to this elegant little book.
Ah, the politically correct retreat into agnosticism. How noble of Vickers to treat with equal intellectual hospitality those who claim that there is no evidence that God exists and point out the glaringly obvious harm that all religion does … and those who believe assertions pulled out of the ass of some ancient witch doctor that fly in the face of the reality we know by science and are based on nothing verifiable, testable, or falsifiable.
But I digress. Vickers really should be directing this criticism at me and my ilk. Dawkins never once makes the assertion that he is 100% sure that God does not exist. (I do, but again, I digress.) Dawkins is all about the probability of God’s existence, and concludes that it is next-to-nothing but not nothing itself—though near enough to be reasonably disregarded.
I have no idea who Vickers is, but I can tell you that she’s an idiot.
For my birthday, my friend, Erin, got me National Geographic’s The Ultimate Field Guide to Photography, which is a great find. I’ve been taking fewer photos lately, and this is just the thing to learn more and get better—which is itself just the thing to re-spark my interest. I can’t handle sucking at something.
My friend, Rene, got me Richard Dawkins’s The God Delusion. The so-called New Atheism is definitely my cup of tea: People who are unabashed and uncompromising atheists who refuse to tow the politically correct “whatever you believe is okay” party line. Religion is harmful, and while I may tolerate it politically (as in, you certainly have the right to believe what you wish without fear of violence or any sort of coercion) without hesitation, I do not tolerate it as a morally or rationally acceptable choice. My other current read, Sam Harris’s The End of Faith, is the perfect complement to The God Delusion, and I wholeheartedly look forward to reading it. It was fun watching Rene worry that I already owned it while I was unwrapping.
Thanks a ton, you guys! Those were my only gifts; 31 is such an odd year, isn’t it?
I’m rather new to the rather interesting enigma that is Christopher Hitchens, and I find that I often disagree with him, but as a religion-hating atheist, I find myself rather often shouting in agreement with him for his politically-incorrect but flat-fucking-out true statements about religion.
In celebration of hatred of superstition and in solidarity with all those who call out the irrational bullshit that is god-worship, here are some of my favorite clips of him from our blessed YouTube:
In reference to ecumenism: “We need to have inoculation against plague, not the spread of a more gentle version of it.”
When Sean Hannity asks if he’s angry at God, Hitchens responds: “Not at God, of course. That would be absurd.”
When asked why a “religious nation” (the US) had to save his “secular nation” (the UK) from the Nazis in WW2, he politely reminds the questioner that America is a secular nation by law and the UK is a religious nation by law.
“Religion ends where philosophy begins just like alchemy ends where chemistry begins just like astrology ends where astronomy begins.”
In many cases, this guy says on a national stage what I believe, and with conviction and eloquence. Now, Mr. Hitchens, please do something with your hair … like not boozing it up in DC all the time.
Now finally, my favorite short clip:
“I think [religion should be] treated with ridicule and hatred and contempt, and I claim that right.” I could kiss him.
[Ed: (2007-02-20 07:36) Numerous glaring errors corrected. I wrote this when I was tired, I guess.]
[Ed: Thanks to emjaybee for the tip.]
So-called “tolerance” of religion is being challenged, even in the overtly Jewish state of Israel.
A group of Israeli women are fighting back against what one called “Taliban-like” Jewish fundamentalists who order women to sit in the back of the bus and to abstain from wearing “immodest” clothing on public bus lines.
It seems that there are some public bus lines in Jerusalem that “look like every other public bus”—with “no written or overtly stated rules about gender segregation”—where fundamentalist Orthodox Jewish men, some of whom apparently self-identify as the “modesty patrol”, demand that women sit in the back of the bus and wear “modest” clothing. And some women aren’t going to stand for it. Naomi Ragen, New York-born Orthodox Jew, when ordered to move to the back, responded, “[A]s long as this is a public bus, I will sit where I please, thank you very much,” and, “Look, you show me in the code of Jewish law where it’s written that I’m not allowed to sit in this seat and I’ll move.” The Israeli Ministry of Transportation had no official response to NPR except that “the seating arrangements are left to the bus company”.
What really bothers me most about this article is a statement by Shira Leibowitz-Schmidt of the Haredi College for Women:
Today in Israel, women go around sometimes as if they’re at the beach. … It’s really very undignified and it’s erotically stimulating and it’s also just distracting. And that’s a form of coercion—I call that non-religious coercion. I call that coercion of eroticism. That’s a much more serious problem: the creeping degradation of the public square.”
All I have to say in response to Ms. Leibowitz-Schmidt (yes, I did say “Ms.” and not “Mrs.” or “Miss”) is: By whose judgment? But at least she’s being honest. She doesn’t give a rat’s ass about rationalizing any sort of “tolerance” toward the Haredi (the so-called “ultra Orthodox”); in fact, she’s a Haredi herself. She demands that the the entire state of Israel fund a bus line and roads and public areas and enforce their own specific value judgments on those who choose to utilize these “public” resources. I hope you can see the outright contradiction in her statement. Apparently, a woman’s wearing of anything not deemed by some divinely revealed or traditional edict of what is modest should not be allowed by the state—and should even be considered coercion—COERSION!!! Apparently, even the natural and even unconscious determination that a woman walking along the street or sitting in the bus is sexually attractive is coercive to a man. Of course, if you believe that even thinking about a strange woman in a sexual way somehow damns or shames the entire race of Jews throughout history, you have a serious problem with logic already. That rabbit hole is deep and full of obvious statements such as: “Morality can only rationally be the realm of individual, conscious, deliberate decision,” “One’s own moral choice cannot logically be transferred or shared with another,” and “You’re individuals, not Jews, goddammit,” and “God does not exist, you assclowns,” so I’ll leave that rabbit hole at that.
Just the idea that in a state that the US supports as its unequivocal ally—that even Objectivists claim is a moral state—such outright discrimination, denegration, and deliberate second-classing of an entire gender occurs is preposterous. While I do object in principle to the idea of the state’s subsidizing the free market in any regard, as long as it is, it must apply its own restrictions upon those subsidized markets. As long as the entire citizenry funds it (coerced funding though it may be), the bus system belongs to all citizens, and all citizens must be able to use it in any matter that does not coerce another—which does not include making a side-curled, bigoted, misogynist think about titties—or bare ankles. God forbid. If such a man really thinks that God will punish him or his race for such thoughts, he alone has the responsibility to avoid those thoughts, and making it law or “regulation” (i.e., law without representation) is just the sort of coercion that invalidates its moral justification.
People, listen: On government or “public” property, the government rules, and the government cannot morally enforce the rules of one religion or another. They can only enforce rational laws that prohibit actual coercion—fraud, physical harm, or imminent (not in the George W sense) threat of physical harm. The government must not take any position on the arbitrary, divinely revealed code of some arbitrary religion. At the very least, many are bound to be contradictory; at the very most, many are bound to be coercive in and of themselves.
But this is all moot in a government that was only mildly transparently formed as a religious state. Individuals deserve justice and, if possible, recompense—not races, not peoples, not religions, not herds, not bushels, not stacks, not gaggles. Individuals. Period. Only an individual can be coerced, and thus only an individual can be a victim. In a state like Israel, where race, parentage, and heritage are all officially recognized by the state for many purposes, I wonder whether such protections can ever be enacted.
I hope Ms. Ragen, above, will modify her argument: The government cannot morally or ethically enforce the edicts of one religion over another on government property. Only private citizens can on their own private property. But no one can enforce their religious edicts by force (except possibly eviction from said property). This is the only rational argument, and the only one that will stand the test of critical thought, but I doubt it will stand in Jerusalem.
evolvefish.com is an interesting little site. (Brace yourself; the design is awful!) They sell accoutrements for followers of the various anti-Christian—or at least anti-fundamentalist-Christian philosophies. They lean a bit—okay, way too far to the left for my taste, but they have a few interesting bits and pieces I may purchase.
Among my favorites are:
So I’ve moved. I could only possibly move up in the world, right? Well to be fair and honest, I actually had it pretty good. I lived, with the help of my friend Monty and his parents, in a house with running water and electricity—at very little expense.
September eleventh. I’m sure I learned the second word before the first. The words summarized and realized the concepts. Eleven is one more than ten. September is the month after August. The words even tell of historical tales and mathematical truths: Arabic numerals, the decimal system, Caesars Julius and Augustus, The Gregorian and Julian calendars. “September” even brings to mind seasonal nostalgia: the beginning of the school year, the end of summer, Labor Day at the lake. Now, though, the seemingly insignificant combination of those two words will always bring something else to mind before all others. The words “September 11” will always evoke my memory of that horrifying day in 2001.
Existence is sort of a dull dream right now. It’s as if some lingering and fundamental ambivalence for living—for dealing with reality—for being responsible for making myself has come to fruition. I am constantly bombarded by contradictory notions of and feelings toward what life is, but I hardly notice any more. I would guess that I’ve been fighting myself over my responsibility to live for a long time.
|
Tweets
