I had been throwing this idea around my head for some time, thinking of writing a post on the subject. Luckily enough, I came across a video that pretty much sums it up for me. Ah the joys of the google for the lazy.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments
policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or
willfully misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid use of vulgar language as well as racial, ethnic, or religious slurs.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim) or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email.
|
|
1 Michael
August 8, 2008 @ 12:14 am CESTAs a religious person, I find the message this man is trying to be convey to be logically precise and in a sense accurate (i.e. ever since Atheism first appeared, it has been waging a war of innuendo against religion to the effect of "your people behave worse than my people.") That is the whole point in a sense when people talk about militant atheism, they are usually referring to the misguided attempts of atheists to float the argument that religion causes so much violence, therefore it is evil, as if the elimination of religious belief would somehow rid the world of violence and bring forth a new age of peace and prosperity. If I were to bring up the issue of Pol Pot and Mao Zedong, the purpose of it would be to prove that what Atheists claim is a function of religion is really a function of human nature. In my view, government should take a general laissez-fare approach to other people’s faith or lack thereof. To me the questions of God, a higher power, or spirituality should be decided by the individual, without reference to any authoritative agency. We are not a "Christian Nation." We have something much better than what "Christian Nations" such as the UK, Germany, Norway and Sweden have: church attendance.
2 Chris
August 8, 2008 @ 12:53 am CESTI would generally agree with Michale. Would "condescending atheist" be better? How ’bout "evangelical atheist"? Me, I just prefer "atheist". I would assume that "thinking theists" and "thinking atheists" would recognize when advocates of their viewpoints on God use taunts, innuendo and ridicule and dismiss them.
3 Michael Merritt
August 8, 2008 @ 3:47 am CESTAs I’ve said before, my problem is not with atheism, but with those who would try and shove their views down the throats of others or needlessly ridicule somebody for their beliefs without some sort of rational argument behind it. You know, like some of the loony religious types (try not to misconstrue this as me saying all religious people are loony…k?) try to do.
More or less, a troll.
4 Samuel Skinner
August 8, 2008 @ 6:23 am CEST"but with those who would try and shove their views down the throats of others or needlessly ridicule somebody for their beliefs without some sort of rational argument behind it."
And you determine what is a rational argument?
5 H. Davids
August 8, 2008 @ 12:58 pm CESTMichael wants a ‘rational argument’ from atheists. Has there ever been a religious person with such a thing. As as atheist, you don’t need an argument, let the other side give some evidence of their ‘truth’. Guess what, not even the Pope can do that for his religion.
6 C Stanley
August 8, 2008 @ 2:53 pm CESTH. Davids- because religion is based on faith, not evidence. If people don’t find that compelling, fine, but why belittle those of us who do have faith? The two mindsets just involve different worldviews (empiricism or positivsm vs. idealism- which includes not only religious philosophies but also the views of secular philosophers like Plato.) I wouldn’t expect that an atheist would embrace faith, so why do atheists demand that everyone should embrace their positivist view and deny the existence of anything that can’t be proven or experienced directly through the senses?
As to the central premise of this video, that the term "militant" is necessarily a propaganda term used to smear atheism, the word has two distinct definitions and the second one is a precise fit for the type of activism that certain atheists engage in:
2 : aggressively active (as in a cause) : combative <militant conservationists> <a militant attitude> synonyms see aggressive [from Mirriam-Webster’s online dictionary]
I guess I can understand people taking offense since militant also has a violent connotation from it’s other definition, but I’m not sure what other term could be used to describe that kind of activism (since that’s an often used term, and the synonyms suggested in that entry-"aggressive" and "combative:- have the same connotation too.)
My point is that any cause that is pursued "forcefully", "aggressively", or "militantly", is going to be labeled as such and that doesn’t necessarily imply physical violence.
7 Claudia, Assistant Editor
August 8, 2008 @ 3:41 pm CESTC Stanley, but "militant" is only used for atheists, wheras evangelical Christian, no less aggressive than even the most passionate atheist, never have to face that term. It’s meant to demean, to take legitimacy away from the viewpoint. When was the last time you heard "militant Christian" when people talk about, say, the American Family Association. No, they are called "pro-family" which has rather more positive connotations than "militant".
8 Jason, Managing Editor
August 8, 2008 @ 4:00 pm CESTSorry, Claudia, but I have to take issue with the factual accuracy of your claim that evangelical Christians "never" have to face pejorative descriptions. They are routinely (and on a blanket level) derided by lefties in the blogosphere as well as the elite media as "theocrats" (with implied overtones of Iran’s regime), they have been compared (unfavorably, in fact) to Afghanistan’s Taliban, and the adjective "hateful" is almost a routine descriptor. Christopher Hitchens and Elton John have used stereotypes about them as the basis for a demand that religion be banned. And almost every time a Hollywood movie or TV show features a conservative Christian character, he turns out to be a rapist cannibal or something. Popular pejorative stereotypes are even worse if the group in question is a conservative Christian subgroup, like Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, or Pentecostals.
The idea that conservative Christians get a pass on criticism or even grossly unfair misrepresentation is just flatly false.
9 C Stanley
August 8, 2008 @ 5:03 pm CESTHave to agree with Jason there. I have indeed heard the term militant Christian (and other terms that are explicitly prejorative)used to describe evangelicals, and not just the fringe types who have engaged in violence.
Another thought that occurred to me is that from the Christian perspective, there’s a good reason for evangelism that isn’t self-motivated. Atheists and agnostics who resent attempts to be converted seem to miss the fact that such efforts by Christians are generally (though not always, of course) motivated by the concern that those who don’t believe will suffer harmful consequences. Yet what is the similar concern from the atheist’s side? What harm do you think would come to believers who won’t ‘convert’ to the positivist world view? If the answer is ‘none’, then the only reason to attempt to convince religious people to abandon their faith is the selfish motivation (either to persuade more people to accept agnosticism/atheism so that it will no longer be a minority viewpoint in our society, or to be able to laud one’s intellectual superiority over the dupes who won’t abandon religion.)
I think that difference is one of the main reasons for the backlash against the so-called militant atheists.
10 Jason, Managing Editor
August 8, 2008 @ 5:06 pm CESTMy biggest objections to "militant" atheists is not when they attempt to persuade believers, but when they attempt to browbeat or, worse, use the government to impose their (lack of) belief system. Some of them have openly called on the government to BAN RELIGION, yet they see no hypocrisy when the complain about “theocrats”.
The incoherent and often abusive rage that lies just beneath the surface in many atheists is inexplicable to me. The compulsion to go out of their way to seek out and confront Christians goes WAY beyond any provocation that the individuals involved seem to have experienced personally. They seem offended by even the possibility that one person might be allowed to disagree with them regarding the existence of God.
11 C Stanley
August 8, 2008 @ 5:34 pm CESTI meant to also add, Claudia, that the term ‘militant’ is also used frequently to describe other activists: ‘militant feminist’, ‘militant environmentalist’, ‘militant gay rights activist’, etc. I admit that such terms are generally considered to have a negative connotation, as in the implication that such people are obsessed or overly aggressive in pursuit of their goals, but that’s different than actually using the term to mean that such people are resorting to violence.
12 Hugh Hill
August 8, 2008 @ 5:45 pm CESTGod is a superstition just like any other and should be treated as such. Hugh Hill, Executive Direstor, Secular Fellowship, secularfellowship.org
13 Michael Merritt
August 8, 2008 @ 5:49 pm CESTAs in a debate. You know, something like, "God doesn’t exist because…" rather than "You suck for believing in God!"
Sure, I’ve seen plenty of well reasoned arguments for the existence of God in debates I’ve been in. Yes, religious people need to be held to the same standard. My position is not a "You, atheist, the burden of proof is on you to disprove God" but one where both sides are engaged in a healthy debate on the subject, even though a lot of debates seem to end up like that.No need for trolling by either side.
14 C Stanley
August 8, 2008 @ 6:01 pm CESTActually, Michael, I disagree with you on the point of holding both sides to the same standard. By definition, each side has its own standard; atheists/agnostics don’t accept the idea of belief in something which can’t be empirically proven, while religious believers and secular people who adhere to idealist philosophies do accept that. So right off the bat, when atheists/agnostics rail at religious believers for not being able to prove their belief, they’re trying to hold them to a standard that the religious believers have rejected.
15 Jason, Managing Editor
August 8, 2008 @ 6:23 pm CESTHugh Hill above provides an excellent illustration of what I am talking about. He does not seek to persuade or even provide an argument of any kind. Instead, he simply gives an order and signs it with his title in an organization dedicated to bashing believers for no material gain. It should be no surprise that many of his targets find such treatment personally offensive.
16 James Cummings
August 8, 2008 @ 7:09 pm CESTI agree with the central point of the video, that the term ‘militant atheist’ is usually a pejorative term denoting those who are active in their campaigning for atheism or a secular society. Most of the people so termed are certainly not ‘militant’ by any stretch of the imagination. However, the same term has been applied to feminists and others when they take an active role in politicizing an atheistic standpoint on issues. I call myself a ‘devout atheist’ because I strongly and fervently believe that there is no God. However, separate to that I think I am an antitheist, not that I dislike any individual theist in specific, but that I strongly believe that organized religion of all forms (and indeed other beliefs in the supernatural) is damaging to society as a whole. As such I believe we should strive for an increasingly more secular society as our societies evolve. (I *don’t* think that we should have an atheistic bloody revolution…so I’m not militant!)
-JamesC
17 Michael
August 8, 2008 @ 7:11 pm CESTHumans are rationally self-interested individuals. Therefore, the real question for me is not "Is there a God or not?" Since I regard God as a fundamentally costless proposition, as do I regard the idea that I can relate to him/her/it.
I regard myself as a mystic, first and foremost. I tried to do the spirituality without religion bit for a while, but simply didn’t have the discipline for it. I have an intense need for more concrete spiritual guidance than atheism or mere spiritualism can provide.
18 Claudia, Assistant Editor
August 8, 2008 @ 9:08 pm CESTJames, you’ve actually touched on something very important that is actually overlooked in the video; the difference between atheism and antitheism. In fact, the term "militant atheist" is wrong on both counts in a sense, since it both implies the negative "militant" (again, I ask someone to produce a piece of mainline news, not blogposts, that refer to "militant Christians") AND uses the term "atheist" instead of the much more precise "antitheist".
Now, my objection to the term "atheist" is much lesser than to the term "militant" because almost always the term "atheist" is in fact used in reference to people who ARE atheists; Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennet, Harris, Hirsi Ali et. al. However, I think calling them "antitheists" would in fact be more precise , since it’s their antitheism that defines their "cause". Concievably, there could be antitheistic deists, for instance. Data came out recently that showed that many people who BELIEVE in god claim to be "atheists", which I suspect could be due to the fact atheism is falsley believed to be defined as being "against religion" instead of a simply lack of faith in god(s). I would imagine that there are religious antitheists in the sense of being against organized religion.
As for your devout atheism, though I appreciate the need to make clear that you are not wishy washy or doubting in the US climate, I would like to inquire about your terminology. Are you saying that you firmly believe in the positive assertion that there is no god? I ask this because that position is as defensible as the positive assertion that there IS a god. The virtual totality of atheists don’t believe in god the same way they don’t believe in fairys, because there is no evidence, but aren’t ardent believers in the positive assertion that there are no fairies. It’s a subtle difference, but an important one.
19 utsu
August 8, 2008 @ 9:14 pm CESTJust keep things extremely secular, marginalize and ridicule those who try to bring faith into more matters than their own, fight bad and outdated social practices and attitudes (homophobia, gender roles) that hide behind religion… Recognize that religion corrupts itself when moving into politics, make sure that your church always tests itself and chooses a balance between evolving and remaining put. Let God become Love again.
20 C Stanley
August 8, 2008 @ 9:27 pm CESTClaudia, just for grins I took your Google challenge (actually on Yahoo search) and it didn’t take me long to come up with this one:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/feb/24/charities.charitymanagement
The activity which earned the moniker ‘militant’ in this case was an e-mail protest.
Sure, the term is used far more among bloggers and other opinionators than mainstream journalists, but that’s true of the use of ‘militant atheists’ as well as far as I can tell.
21 Jason, Managing Editor
August 8, 2008 @ 9:33 pm CESTClaudia, it would be nice if you wouldn’t just ignore my response to you on the alleged free pass that Christians get while you reiterate your claim.
22 Godless Cheesehead
August 8, 2008 @ 10:12 pm CESTNot surprisingly, as an atheist, I do not like the term "militant atheist" and I essentially agree with the point of view presented in the video. However, I’m not at all surprised by its use, it is a common way of demeaning and devaluing the subject presented by the person who has been tagged as "militant." As noted by several people in this post the term has been used for feminists and gay rights activists (and Christians too). Again, such language provides an easy justification for dismissing the content of the individual’s case. Now, I’m not a social scientist, but I suspect that this is a typical response of any majority group to any minority group trying to make its case, particularly when in opposition to the viewpoints and beliefs held by the majority.
Finally, I wanted to comment on something C. Stanley said. "Actually, Michael, I disagree with you on the point of holding both sides to the same standard. By definition, each side has its own standard; atheists/agnostics don’t accept the idea of belief in something which can’t be empirically proven, while religious believers and secular people who adhere to idealist philosophies do accept that. So right off the bat, when atheists/agnostics rail at religious believers for not being able to prove their belief, they’re trying to hold them to a standard that the religious believers have rejected." I agree with this statement entirely. However, (as I have mentioned before to C. Stanley) the problem with adopting any philosophy that is entirely based on faith and lacking any physical grounds for support is that it allows anyone to claim what ever reality they wish irregardless of the facts (I personally know of an individual who is convinced that the earth is being monitored by extraterrestrials and depending on our behavior, we will be accepted into a Galactic Federation. This person’s beliefs are as genuine and sincere as any deeply religious individual). Now in many cases such beliefs can be completely benign, but in too many instances they won’t be at all. I think that most people would agree that the terrorists of 9/11 were completely convinced that they were doing the will of God. This was an act entirely justified by their personal religious beliefs. In the case of Christianity, believing in the Christian God means (at least for the majority of Christians) complete denial of gay rights or using embryonic stem cells in medical research to name just a few examples. From an atheists point of view, based entirely on the physical evidence, such positions are completed unjustified and unwarranted. So in the end, would this world be better off without religion, I would say absolutely!
23 Claudia, Assistant Editor
August 8, 2008 @ 10:13 pm CESTJason, my not commenting on your comments wasn’t particularly purposeful, I didn’t respond to most of the comments. Most of us almost NEVER respond to all comments. But since you wish an answer I will give it naturally enough.
Since you have two main assertions I will respond to both. I continue to believe that in the media it is much easier to be an aggressive Christian than an aggressive atheist without getting the pejorative "militant" or "radical" put on you (C. Stanley, I concede that it may be used sometimes, but your example was from the UK, not the US). I was not, and am not, claiming that evangelical Christians are never insulted by people or groups who disagree with them, since asserting such a thing would be absurd. I (and I would venture the man in the video) am simply taking exception to using the term "militant" for people (especially the group formed by Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Hirsi Ali and Harris) whose worst crime has been being a bombastic douche (I speak of course of Hitchens). "Militant atheist" is an increasingly acceptable way of reffering to these people. If I started seeing "American Taliban" on CNN as a way of reffering to the American Family Association, I would expect quite an outcry (and would agree, as much as I detest the AFA, they are no taliban).
As for calling for the banning of religion, I’m afraid I’m going to have to ask you to substantiate that. I flatly don’t believe that Dawkins, Dennett, Harris or Hirsi Ali have ever said such a thing. Most especially Dawkins and Dennett, who I follow and know would not ask such a thing. Hirsi Ali is only concerned with Islam and Harris is downright spiritual, though firmly an atheist. The only one left is Hitchens, but even that I would need to see proved. Calling for the "end of religion" or "removal of religion from government/schools" or "removal of tax-exempt status" or similar feelings do not mean the banning of religous practice. The "end of religion" for your average antitheist atheist means a gradual ending of religion through intelectual and educational means, not military or legal. That is, not ending religion by banning it’s practice, but by convincing others of it’s uselessness and offering alternatives. Though I don’t doubt that there are idiots out there who would like to ban the practice of religion, but I find highly doubtful that any of the "leaders" (insofar as it could be considered a movement) of active antitheistic atheism would propose such a thing. If Hitchens has done that, then he’s an ass (big surprise) and wrong.
24 Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief
August 8, 2008 @ 10:41 pm CESTClaudia; in a truly secular liberally democratic system, how is it any of thee government’s business to convince people that religion is not correct, not useful, that there are ‘alternatives’ and so on? That remarkably sounds like a brainwashing government in action. Teaching religion in religion classes is logical in so far that many people believe in one religion or another and that, in order to understand society, its history, its culture, its opinions, the way it works, and so on and so on, you’ve got to understand its religious views, whether you agree with them or not.
25 Claudia, Assistant Editor
August 8, 2008 @ 10:53 pm CESTWow, I had no idea what I said was that easy to misinterpret. When I talk about "ending religion through education and offering alternatives, I was IN NO WAY suggesting that it should be government that does this. Government should NOT be in the business of telling us what to think about religion one way or the other. The actions should be undertaken by concerned members in society, not the government, naturally enough.
26 Claudia, Assistant Editor
August 8, 2008 @ 11:00 pm CESTAh and to your "teaching religion" I actually agree that religious history should be taught, since it is central to history in general. You can’t very well understand much of European history, art, architecture and music without having a rudimentary understanding of Christian thought. But it should be taught in a strictly neutral sense "This is what the religion of Christianity believes and this is how that belief has influenced X" without endorsing or condemning it, at least in public schools.
Actually for me the ideal would be for ALL children to be taught MULTIPLE religious traditions. That is, they would be taught the basic beliefs, cultural symbols and doctrines of different religions, with an emphasis on the religions that have the most influence in their particular culture but ALL of it in strictly neutral terminology. Of course, you and I both know that many teachers would find it irresistible to use their position as authority figures to lend more credibility to their particular religious belief, which is why many consider that the only safe way of preventing that is not having such classes at all.
27 Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief
August 8, 2008 @ 11:14 pm CESTYou did not say that and the wording is obviously such that one assumes that you mean by the government, especially because liberals such as yourself often advocate government involvement in education. And even if you did not; government is involved in this, monopolized it more or less, even in the US. So it would still be logical
However;
Isn’t this how it is taught and doesn’t that make the point about erasing it partially from education void?
This is how religion has been taught to me and the only bias I saw was not by those who were of a religion but by atheist teachers who rejected religion in all ways, calling it fathoms of man’s imagination, and so on. Taking religion seriously is not ‘biased.’
28 Michael Merritt
August 9, 2008 @ 12:57 am CEST"That is, not ending religion by banning it’s practice, but by convincing others of it’s uselessness and offering alternatives."
Hear hear! This is exactly what I keep saying, though people seem to be misunderstanding me as well.
Michael:
The first thing I thought of when I read that sentence was average joes engaging in a well-spirited debate about the assertions made by the religious and non-religious, and trying to provide arguments for their point of view to try and win people to their side. Maybe it’s because this is what keep trying to say around here, but that’s what came to me first. I’m not sure why you automatically assume Claudia is trying to push some government-run brainwashing program, because I didn’t get that idea from the sentence at all.
Christine: I mean held to the same standards in that they ought to be expected to engage in a debate about belief and non-belief and try to win people to their side. I think you misunderstood from the example I used. I was just trying to show how many debates I’ve seen end up.
29 Simon Fink
August 9, 2008 @ 11:29 am CESTThe worry is that while we’re discussing the red-herring of ‘militant atheism’ the theists in Iran are building nuclear weapons in a move that may quite easily bring about the Armageddon the fundamentalist Christians and Muslims crave.
30 C Stanley
August 9, 2008 @ 3:47 pm CESTHowever, (as I have mentioned before to C. Stanley) the problem with adopting any philosophy that is entirely based on faith and lacking any physical grounds for support is that it allows anyone to claim what ever reality they wish irregardless of the facts (I personally know of an individual who is convinced that the earth is being monitored by extraterrestrials and depending on our behavior, we will be accepted into a Galactic Federation. This person’s beliefs are as genuine and sincere as any deeply religious individual). Now in many cases such beliefs can be completely benign, but in too many instances they won’t be at all.
Then deal with the cases which are not benign instead of fighting against religious belief in general.
I think that most people would agree that the terrorists of 9/11 were completely convinced that they were doing the will of God. This was an act entirely justified by their personal religious beliefs. In the case of Christianity, believing in the Christian God means (at least for the majority of Christians) complete denial of gay rights or using embryonic stem cells in medical research to name just a few examples. From an atheists point of view, based entirely on the physical evidence, such positions are completed unjustified and unwarranted. So in the end, would this world be better off without religion, I would say absolutely!
Perfect example to support my statement above. When religion is coapted to support a cause which is violent, it ought to be obvious that there’s a problem just as there is a problem when ANY OTHER IDEOLOGY is coapted in such a way. You are of the opinion that religious belief is particularly problematic in this way because adherents of religions are not basing their belief system on physically provable facts- yet I’d submit that people are just as likely to fall prey to groupthink which can tend to violence for any other cause they believe is righteous and just. Examples would be any nationalistic cause, radical environmentalism, or political systems like Marxism. The ends justifies the means to people who feel that the ends are important enough, and you don’t need a God involved to have people fall into that trap. It’s human nature that’s the problem, not God’s commands.
31 C Stanley
August 9, 2008 @ 4:07 pm CESTMicheal Merrit wrote:
Christine: I mean held to the same standards in that they ought to be expected to engage in a debate about belief and non-belief and try to win people to their side. I think you misunderstood from the example I used. I was just trying to show how many debates I’ve seen end up.
I understand you and didn’t really mean that you feel that religious believers should ‘prove’ their faith. But I feel it’s an important point where antitheists go wrong, because they won’t accept faith in a Creator as a valid viewpoint because the believers can’t produce physical evidence, when the believers are specifically saying that we know that we can’t prove the existence of God. All we wish for nonbelievers to acknowledge is that they can’t prove His nonexistence either, and there are certain reasons that it’s not illogical to presume a creator (we have no experience of any existence of matter or energy in the universe forming without the hand of a creator, thus this presumption is actually the more intuitive one rather than presuming a spontaneous formation of matter or positing that time and the existence of our universe stretches backward infinitely.)
And in addition to that basic concept which is not illogical, rational believers can also contemplate some of the more scholarly works of theology and see how our beliefs about God and his relationship to man explain a lot about human nature and inspire us to order our lives toward good. I find that few atheists and agnostics have studied any of the great works of theology (such as Augustine and Aquinas from antiquity, as well as recent writings by Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict.) It’s highly devoid of intellectual integrity to be so dismissive of theology without having taken time to examine it on its merits.
And when writers like the antitheists discussed here talk about the effects of religion on civilization, they take a propagandistic, highly slanted view. They focus on all corrupt adaptations of religion and ignore the fact that the great writings of the ancient Greeks would have been lost to us during the Dark ages had it not been for the Benedictine order of monks; they ignore that even today, the Catholic Church is the world’s foremost healthcare provider and that religiously based charities perform great works to help the poor, infirm, imprisoned, and physically and mentally handicapped.
It’s no wonder that those who haven’t studied theology and haven’t examined the good works of religion would take a negative view when they’ve been exposed to a one sided, negative view promoted by the antitheists. But those who choose to follow those writers and ignore the other side of the issue ought not to be surprised that there is backlash, and they ought not to complain about propaganda from the other side if they’re unwilling to call their heroes on their own propaganda.
32 C Stanley
August 9, 2008 @ 4:16 pm CESTAs for calling for the banning of religion, I’m afraid I’m going to have to ask you to substantiate that. I flatly don’t believe that Dawkins, Dennett, Harris or Hirsi Ali have ever said such a thing. Most especially Dawkins and Dennett, who I follow and know would not ask such a thing.
I don’t know of any of those writers calling for banning of religion either, but what I do object to is that they are waging a propagandistic campaign against religion. Look at the commenters here, including yourself, and ask whether or not ANY of them have taken time to study the belief systems with an open mind to see if there is relative good in them which can benefit mankind. Can you, or any of the other agnostic/atheistic commenters here, honestly say that you’ve given equal time to read about positive views of Christianity (or religious faith in general) to counterbalance the negative views that you read from Dawkins, Dennet, Hitchens, et al?
So no, the greatest crime of these writers isn’t being ‘a bombastic douche’, it’s being propagandists because they constantly beat the drum against religion and ignore the positive side. They and their followers are guilty of a lack of intellectual integrity with that unbalanced view.
33 C Stanley
August 9, 2008 @ 4:24 pm CESTOh, one more thing, Claudia. I attempted to do a Google search for the term "militant atheist" to compare the results that I got with "militant Christian". In both cases, most of the hits came from blogs or other opinion sites, not MSM articles. In the case of militant atheist, I couldn’t find a single citation from the MSM, and the majority of the hits weren’t from religious bloggers smearing atheism (though some were, of course.) Instead though, the vast majority were from articles like this one, where atheists were complaining about how they are constantly being labelled that way. Even the guy in your video link admits (and several other blog posts I saw mention this too) that Dawkins himself urges atheists to be ‘militant’. So forgive me if I’m less than sympathetic about this concern, because it seems like an awful lot of manufactured outrage to me.
I’ll reiterate, that the term ‘militant’ has more than one meaning. Also note that almost all political debates tend to take on the language of fighting- political ‘battles’, ‘clash of ideas’, hell, even the word ‘campaign’ comes from war lexicon. That’s the nature of it because people hold firmly to beliefs and fight for what they believe in; use of fight terms does not, however, necessarily involve violence and in fact it usually does not.
34 Godless Cheesehead
August 9, 2008 @ 6:30 pm CESTWell, it doesn’t take long for lots of comments to be generated. So I’ll try and address just a few points raised by C. Stanley.
"Then deal with the cases which are not benign instead of fighting against religious belief in general."
But this is exactly the point! Religious belief, because it is NOT based on any factual evidence, leaves interpretation up to the practitioner who can then interpret their religious texts any way they wish for both good and bad! You cannot distinguish between moral and immoral solely from a religious text as most contradict themselves many times over. During the civil war both proponents of slavery and abolitionists eagerly quoted the bible to justify their point of view. So, whose interpretation was correct? Today there is a huge schism among Christians regarding gay rights, again both sides eagerly quote the bible to justify their position. So which side is right? Ultimately, you CANNOT rely on religion to get it right because in many important instances it won’t! In other words, religious belief is a complete mixed bag where upon many good things can and have been done, but many terrible things as well. We need a better system to provide morality, one based on sound rational thought unfettered by the bonds of dogma.
Now with regard to another point raised by C. Stanley
"I understand you and didn’t really mean that you feel that religious believers should ‘prove’ their faith. But I feel it’s an important point where antitheists go wrong, because they won’t accept faith in a Creator as a valid viewpoint because the believers can’t produce physical evidence, when the believers are specifically saying that we know that we can’t prove the existence of God. All we wish for nonbelievers to acknowledge is that they can’t prove His nonexistence either, and there are certain reasons that it’s not illogical to presume a creator (we have no experience of any existence of matter or energy in the universe forming without the hand of a creator, thus this presumption is actually the more intuitive one rather than presuming a spontaneous formation of matter or positing that time and the existence of our universe stretches backward infinitely.)"
Of course we can’t prove the non existence of God, its not logically possible to prove a negative. However, since you assert that such a being exits, the burden of proof lies with you. I can make all kinds of ridiculous assertions that you cannot disprove, e.g. the earth is being monitored by highly intelligent extraterrestrials and depending on our behavior will or won’t be admited to a Galactic Federation. Prove this isn’t true! Or, we are all living inside a huge sophisticated alien computer simulation (as in the Matrix) and our reality is completely virtual. Prove this isn’t true! The point is that if I make any assertions like these, I’d better come up with some evidence to back it up or you will never, justifiably, believe me! I think that every single atheist would accept the existence of God, or gods, if the evidence presented itself. E.g. Jesus materializing out of the blue to tell me how wrong I am would be pretty convincing!
Finally the statement "that it is not illogical to presume a creator" because we don’t know how the Big Bang came about is a complete non-sequitur and a common logical fallacy that believers fall into. Based on the evidence at hand we simply cannot say anything about the time before the Big Bang, but this in and of itself does not at all require the necessity of a creator. Until we know more, we just cannot say. And if you think that there are not scientific hypothesis, devoid of any supernaturalism, that address this question, you’d be wrong. See for example http://archive.sciencewatch.com/jan-feb2004/sw_jan-feb2004_page1.htm, 3rd pargraph down. Now as far as I’m concerned, I’ll pay attention to this idea when, if ever, it can be confirmed by some piece of physical evidence.
35 C Stanley
August 9, 2008 @ 6:51 pm CESTGC: On the burden of proof issue, my point is that agnostics/atheists always frame it that way (the burden of proof is on you to support your positive assertion) yet believers in God by definition have already conceded that there is no such proof. Why keep arguing something that is conceded? Believers say we believe in God, not that we know of his existence in an empirical sense. Everyone is free to make up their mind then, whether all of the beliefs that various religions hold in regard to that, make any sense of human experience or not.
My only point in turning that back on you is that it is YOUR system of thought that requires proof, not mine. So by pointing out the impossibility of disproving God’s existence, I’m simply reminding you that by your own standard, you can’t falsify my hypothesis. If you think it an extremely unlikely one which isn’t worth your time to consider, that’s your prerogative, but I’ve already stated why I don’t think you should consider it an illogical hypothesis and why I think it’s worthy of consideration (the moral system of theology that derives from it if done properly in conjunction with reason.)
And there are ways of applying reason to religious beliefs to see if they hold up to a standard of reason. Our current pope has written extensively on faith and reason. You still may disagree with the theology or find it unnecessary in your personal life, but the fact is that your call for a ‘better system of morality’ will still require someone to be the arbiter of what is better. Current secular thought in our culture focuses on what is ‘good’ for the individual, without regard to a moral compass that perhaps was instilled by a God who had specific designs for us. That is one view, which stands in conflict at times with the religious view. Because you find it more rational and more likely to be the correct morality doesn’t make it so.
Now, any believer who engages in political discussions by claiminig that their view is right because God told them so is not engaging in a rational manner. Yet there’s no reason that his/her view that is founded on a belief in God’s plan for mankind should abstain from promoting his/her viewpoint- he’s just obviously not going to convince anyone of its merits unless he can describe the rationale in different terms.
In the end though, we’re all trying to get at what we think is morally ‘good’. Religious believers look toward a personified figure who is ‘good’, while secular humanists believe that we can rationally determine morality by focusing on an abstract idea of ‘good’.
36 C Stanley
August 9, 2008 @ 6:55 pm CESTOn your last paragraph about the Big Bang, etc…you’re again trying to hold a believer to your own standard of proof. I never claimed that my intuitive sense of a creator based on doubts about any other process or continuum being possible constitute a proof. I’m only explaining why I don’t find the hypothesis of a Creator to be inconsistent with logic in the least; in fact it’s more consistent than other hypotheses because it’s more consistent with everything else in our experience.
37 Godless Cheesehead
August 10, 2008 @ 1:10 am CESTC. Stanley. OK, so you concede the point that for you to believe in God, you don’t require empirical proof (I believe you made this point before, sorry for belaboring it). But you still have not addressed my main contention, which is how does one distinguish between "true revelation" and "false revelation." After all, Christians believe in Christ’s divinity while clearly Jews and Muslims don’t. Seems to me that you have a real problem in establishing whose vision of God is the correct one. And all three of these religions are pretty clear about the consequences if you don’t adhere to their particular take on God.
Could you elaborate on "My only point in turning that back on you is that it is YOUR system of thought that requires proof, not mine" because I don’t follow your logic here at all. Physicist have done a remarkable job of explaining how the Universe is the way it is since the time of the big bang, all done by following the empirical evidence, without the need to introduce anything supernatural. So you have the proof already. So what is your point? Are there still outstanding questions? Absolutely, and if the history of science can serve as a guide, most of these questions will eventually be answered and its unlikely that God will be necessary to explain any of them.
With regard to your point "You still may disagree with the theology or find it unnecessary in your personal life, but the fact is that your call for a ‘better system of morality’ will still require someone to be the arbiter of what is better." I don’t see a problem with this, it can be codified in laws by consensual agreement just as we do today with any set of local, state and federal laws. The difference is that these laws will be based on our knowledge of what is good for individuals and society through rational discourse and not because some God commands it. If you think this is preposterous consider the following two examples.
i) The majority of Budhists, some 350 million people world wide, essentially do not believe in a God at all (certainly not a personal God as in Christianity or Islam) . So, where does their morality come from? It comes from the Buddha, who explicitly stated that he was a man and not divine. He told them specifically how they should behave to live a moral life! I think most people would agree that by and large Budhists are very moral non-violent individuals. And this morality is entirely based on what a man decided is moral, NOT A GOD.
ii) Pyschology, including studies of our closest relatives the chimpanzees, is showing ever more convincingly that our morality is hard wired into us through evolution. From an evolutionary perspective its not hard to understand why a huge majority of people find murder entirely reprehensible. It would likely be impossible to build communal societies if murder was morally acceptable. Hence we have descended from people that long ago were selected through evolution to have a strong repugnance for murder. In essence, what these studies are indicating is that religion arose in part to justify moral behaviors that were already hard wired into human behavior due to evolutionary development. Hence, we as Humans should not have that much problem defining a morality since much of it is already hardwired into our brains. I’m not saying that it will be trivial, but I don’t see any reason why it can’t be done without ever requiring a God for justification.
38 Al Sweigart
August 10, 2008 @ 11:45 pm CESTI just wanted to thank Poligazette.com and the people who have been leaving comments here for taking notice of my video. Thanks, and it’s been great reading everyone’s comments.
39 Claudia, Assistant Editor
August 10, 2008 @ 11:56 pm CESTThanks to you Al. Feel free to do more videos that save me the effort of actually writing long blog posts of my own
Kidding, thanks for stopping by!
40 raihan
August 12, 2008 @ 3:50 am CESTadmin: neither anti-Americanism nor religious bigotry is welcome here