There it is; all the objections to New Atheism distilled into a single quotation. It conflates an attack on one’s false or questionable beliefs with an attack on one’s person.
This comes from a new article in the Torygraph by journalist and historian Dr. Tim Stanley, whose newspaper bio says he’s recently published a biography of Pat Buchanan (!) and whose faith is described by Wikipedia:
In October 2012 Stanley stated he was “raised a good Baptist boy”. He is a convert to Roman Catholicism. Previously, he considered himself to be an Anglican, beginning around “one glorious summer” in 2002, and was baptized as an Anglican in Little St. Mary’s, Cambridge in New Year 2003. He later aligned himself with the Church of England’s Anglo-Catholic wing before becoming a Roman Catholic.
So naturally Stanley might be a little techy when his faith is insulted. In fact, in yesterday’s paper he produced an entire column about it: “If we’re cracking down on Twitter abuse, can we include Richard Dawkins and the atheist trolls?”
It can be summed up in the four words of his main complaint, “words can hurt, too”.
Well, yes they can, but they can hurt in two ways: they can make fun of things that you can’t change or are irrelevant to your innate human dignity, like your ethnicity, weight, or appearance. Or they can make fun of ideas that you can change, and, while not affecting your inherent value as a human being, can nevertheless be harmful and wrong. One of those categories is, of course, religious belief. Stanley is peeved that Dawkins goes after his belief:
So this gives me an opportunity to flag up a particular kind of abuse that’s annoyed me for a long time: aggressive online atheism. Don’t get me wrong: this is in no way comparable to the terrible sexual abuse that has recently gained headlines. But it’s still amazing how people feel that they can casually mock the spiritual and emotional convictions of others – including Tweeting directly at believers that God doesn’t exist and they’re either liars or idiots for saying so. One man who does this with gay abandon is Richard Dawkins. Apparently Prof Dawkins is a genius who writes beautifully about chromosomes and cave men. Well, bully for him. But he’s a bully, nonetheless. A recent Tweet that caused a stir: “Don’t ask God to cure cancer & world poverty. He’s too busy finding you a parking space & fixing the weather for your barbecue.” Hilarious. Or on Islam: “Mehdi Hasan admits to believing Muhamed flew to heaven on a winged horse. And New Statesman sees fit to print him as a serious journalist.” Of course, that’s the same New Statesman that invited Dick Dawkins to edit it for a week – so, yeah, its taste is questionable.
“Bully”? Really? Is it bullying to make fun of someone’s belief? As for the two Tweets, as far as I know Dawkins apologized for the one about Hasan (though I didn’t see it as a flagrant case of bullying, and the first one, about God curing cancer, was simply funny. Perhaps Stanley doesn’t understand that the attitudes Dawkins was mocking here are largely American: we pray for the dumbest things, like victories in football games. Surely sarcasm is not out of line for stuff like that.
And, while we’re at it, everyone knows that Richard doesn’t like being called “Dick Dawkins,” so what is that but a gratuitous insult?
Now Stanley doesn’t go so far to call for Dawkins’s tweets to be banned. But he does decry Richard’s Twitter attacks on religion:
When you insult my faith you go right to the heart of what makes me me. When you’re trying to convince me in 140 characters of sub-GCSE philosophical abuse that God doesn’t exist, you’re trying to take away the faith that gets me up in the morning, gets me through the day and helps me sleep at night. You’re ridiculing a God without whom I suspect I might not even be alive, and a God that I prayed to when my mother was going through cancer therapy. You’re knocking a Church that provides me with compassion and friendship without asking for anything in return – perhaps the greatest, most wonderful discovery of my adult life. You see, people don’t generally believe in God for reasons of convenience or intellectual laziness. It’s usually fulfilling a deep need – filling a soul with love that might otherwise be quite empty and alone. In short, when you try to destroy someone’s faith you’re not being a brilliant logician. You’re being a jerk.
Well, too fricking bad! If what makes you you is a belief in delusions, like your redemption through the execution of a Palestinian carpenter, or the notion that a cracker and wine literally—literally—become the body and blood of that carpenter, then you’re fair game for criticism. And plenty of people think the core of their being rests on belief in the Genesis story of creation and a young earth, the idea of psychic phenomena, or their imagined abduction by aliens. Are we to coddle them as well?
None of these ideas deserve dignity. And the same Church that provides Stanley with compassion and friendship also marginalizes women, prohibits abortion, divorce, and gay behavior, terrorizes children with thoughts of hell, sanctions and protects child rape, and deliberately spreads AIDS in Africa by denying its adherents birth control. Are we to remain silent on these, too? What world is Stanley living in?
Presumably Stanley wouldn’t object if someone writes a tw–t that criticizes his conservative politics. And many people’s political beliefs also “go to the heart of what makes me me.” So why are politics fair game and religion not? I have yet to understand this distinction; perhaps some readers can explain it to me. For many folks, politics is as pervasive a worldview as religion is for others.
Finally, yes, people have some deep needs that are fulfilled by faith. But those deep needs reflect an intellectual laziness as well—the laziness to not examine whether you have good reasons for what you believe, the laziness to figure out why Roman Catholicism is, say, a better “worldview” than that of Islam. And, most distressing, the laziness to accept the Church’s succor without decrying its retrograde ideology. Really, who does more harm: Richard Dawkins or the Catholic Church?
Stanley’s misguided piece reminds me of Peter Boghossian’s terrific talk at TAM 2013 on “Authenticity“, which was notable for proposing a mantra that we should all keep in mind;:
“Ideas do not deserve dignity; people deserve dignity.”
What Stanley is trying to do is shut down discourse on religion by conflating “ideas” and “people.” You can’t do that, for good people can have bad ideas.
h/t: Ant
Yes, needs that “reflect an intellectual laziness.” Excellent.
That line about the barbecue IS funny.
Torygraph — very good!
“When you insult my faith you go right to the heart of what makes me me.”
Think of it as non-believers practicing “loving the sinner, but hating the sin” secular style.
BOOM. f’n brilliant. Must remember that.
“You’re knocking a Church that provides me with compassion and friendship without asking for anything in return”
What is that I see before me? A collection plate?
…and blind obedience controlling one’s gonads, thinking processes, in-group/out-group tribalism, etc. The RCC asks for everything.
Doesn’t the RCC ask for your soul?
“with gay abandon” was no doubt a deliberately chosen phrase, too.
It’s considered impolite in social interaction to criticize someone’s religion directly, but is twitter really an extension of a face-to-face interaction?
Fantasies don’t stand up to the harsh light of day. That’s the real reason believers object to criticism – they’re secretly afraid they’re believing in a fantasy just to make themselves feel better. How comforting would this god have been if his mother had died from her cancer? And what about the youth pastor who prayed for a safe bus trip to Indianapolis and wound up dead? Does God hate him?
You’re quite wrong. Believers will happily listen and engage with criticism. What they won’t do is tolerate mockery. What Dawkins was doing wasn’t criticising, he wasn’t engaging in debate or gleeful intellectual discourse. He was mocking. That’s not clever. How is a discourse that starts with “Your belief system is stupid” to be called anything other than bullying. If you say something like “I cannot see how your beliefs are supportable because…” and then go into reasons, that’s fine. But mocking is different.
Dawkins said:
I just don’t see this as bullying. Wikipedia says bullying is, “verbal harassment or threat, physical assault or coercion….” I don’t see any of that here. It’s satire. You would see the same type of satire on any comedy channel. You may not share the humour, but it isn’t bullying.
I for one it’s hilarious. It’s hilarious because he is pointing out the ridiculousness of the notion that people pray for parking spaces and good weather and he does so cleverly in one sentence. Even religious people, truly religious people, would see this type of prayer as useless.
If a religious person is offended by a tweet like that, then that person need a reality check.
Your sense of offence is of no concern to anyone else but you, and you should deal with it accordingly.
Even Jesus himself mocked such prayers. It’s pretty clearly stated in Matthew Ch. 6, which, based on how they talk about praying and pray in groups and in public, many Christians appear never to have read, even though they’ve memorized the Lord’s Prayer.
…and, of course, said admonition against public mindless repetitive prayer was exactly the introduction to the Lord’s Prayer. As in, the immediately preceding verses with Jesus ending with something like, “Therefore, ye should pray like this:”
The ironing is often lost on that one, too.
Cheers,
b&
People don’t just pray for parking and good weather; they thank God for answering their prayers when they find a parking place or the weather is good, but blame themselves or bad luck when they don’t or it’s bad, because “God moves in a mysterious way”. (Actually, they do.)
Some believers will happily listen and engage with criticism. Others won’t, and will take offense at anything adverse said about their faith. Some believers don’t know what’s in their own holy books – I mock the talking donkey in the bible to wake that sort of believer up. Mocking also shocks some people into realizing that not everyone worships what they do and that their beliefs don’t get a free pass in the marketplace of ideas.
Mocking is different, but it’s not necessarily wrong.
Someone quick! Bring the smelling salts!
Yes. I believe there is a place for mockery. Here for instance.
When what believers profess to believe in is as embarrassingly childish as it so often is, merely summarizing their beliefs constitutes mockery.
The Bible, for example, opens with a story about an enchanted garden with talking animals and an angry wizard. It later features a talking plant (on fire!) that gives magic wand lessons to the reluctant hero. And it concludes with this utterly bizarre zombie snuff pr0n fantasy where the king of the undead has one of his thralls thrust his hand into his gaping chest wound — and, even more amazing, this story is often cited as the reason why no additional evidence is needed to accept the entire book as the truest document in the Universe.
There is not one exaggeration in anything in that preceding paragraph. It uses common language, and the common meanings of the words in common language, and it is entirely true and a fair summary of three of the most important stories in the Bible.
Yet I’m sure you’ll now at least mentally accuse me of mocking Christianity.
Of course, you’d be right — I often do. But, the thing is, Christianity is so batshit fucking insane that it mocks itself. Even the most heartfelt and sincere of proponents comes off as a raving lunatic.
That’s the Christians’s problems, not the rationalists’s.
b&
The problem here is that while you’re a little bit correct that some believers are happy to engage, all-too-often believers will treat *any* criticism not just as mockery but as vicious personal attacks, shutting down the criticism before it even gets started. I’ve seen far milder words from the likes of Dawkins treated by pearl-clutchers like Stanley as though they were shrieked from Hitler’s own rostrum.
But, you know what? Sod it. If someone exhibits ridiculous political, economic, environmental, philosophical (etc) ideas then I’ll ridicule them, no matter how important those ideas. I see no reason to hold back regarding religious belief.
Well, we can debate the mocking thing. The Dawkins quote is a toned down version and slightly different of god’s busy giving African children aids so he can’t answer your prayers right now. Both poke fun at the internal inconsistency of the believe in prayer, one that people “waste” an apparently limited supply of prayers on unimportant things and the other that ex post god seems to only get credit for the upside. Either way I don’t see how this remotely compares with the idea that people should be tortured forever just because they can’t believe in the random religious tradition they were brought up in.
The answer – change ‘me’. Plenty have, & are more realistic, better human beings for it.
Yep, it’s a big double standard. And a further point, in Britain religious beliefs *are* political in the sense that religion has huge privilege, not just in the US sense of de facto having it when the constitution says it shouldn’t, but actually legally mandated privilege.
Given that religion has absurd amounts of privilege in Britain, for example laws requiring people to worship the Christian god, that makes religion fair game in exactly the same way that politics is.
“…for example laws requiring people to worship the Christian god…”
I always wonder if anyone who thinks that’s good ever stops to realize that each time they choose compliance over sincerity, it’s a tacit admission that their god is too stupid to tell the difference.
L
Well, Red Bull (zero) through the nose is no better than water (with bubbles) through the nose.
Or that their god is so shallow that it doesn’t care whether its worshipers are sincere or not.
Hmm… “… requiring people to worship the Christian god…”
That’s not actually what the School Standards and Framework Act actually says.
/@
* yeah, yeah – overuse of ”actually”
Which is not to say that any requirements for collective worship in schools are reasonable or appropriate in secular society. Just in case *you* misunderstand me.
/@
The law requires pupils to participate every school day in an “act of collective worship” of a “broadly Christian character”.
How is that not fairly paraphrased as “… requiring people to worship the Christian god…”?
Well, ianal, but paraphrasing the law seems imprudent…
There is that general requirement, but the statement is more nuanced than “worship the Christian god”. I’m sure both lawyers and theologians can drive a wedge between what the Act actually says and your paraphrase.
And you don’t appear to have read far enough. It is not an absolute requirement: There are options and exceptions.
/@
From the point of view of the school child legally required to do the god worshiping there are no options.
You are right that there are “options” in that their parents can opt them out, and there are options for the school to change from worship of a “broadly Christian character” to, say, Muslim worship (though they are not allowed to drop the god-worshiping all together).
But that doesn’t change the fact that the school child finds himself legally required to worship the Abrahamic god in whichever variant the school chooses, with no say or choice in the matter.
[Though of course about half the schools in the land dislike this law so much that they simply ignore it.]
“the school child finds himself legally required to worship the Abrahamic god”
Nope. There is no such requirement in the Act.
/@
Ant,
Tell us, what do you think the object of worship is in the “Christian traditions” of Britain?
Hint: It’s not Allah or Vishnu.
Irrelevant.
/@
Wrong. The correct answer is: the Christian God. The God of the Bible.
Oh ha ha, straight to video.
Nevertheless, your question remains irrelevant.
/@
Yes there is. The law states that “each pupil … shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship” where the worship is “wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character”.
It is entirely fair to paraphrase the law as I did. If you are making some sort of claim that one is not allowed to paraphrase a law, and must only refer to it using the exact statute wording, then I think you’re being overly pedantic.
No, there isn’t. “each pupil … shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship” where the worship is “wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character” is not a requirement “to worship the Abrahamic god”.
There is a lot of wriggle room in Schedule 20.
You might consider that being overly pedantic, but good luck then if you ever find yourself in court!
/@
* (add to first para.) …, because the “wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character” need not always – or ever – apply.
Noting that none of this “wriggle room” is available to the child legally required to do the god worshiping, and that the “wriggle room” available to the school does not go beyond various different flavours of god-worship, you are just being pedantic.
My paraphrase is not misleading, and it’s ridiculous to insist that I should quote whole multi-paragraph schedules rather than give a brief and accurate paraphrase.
Really, Coel, your paraphrase is not misleading? You originally claimed that the law required “people to worship the Christian god” and then that “the school child finds himself legally required to worship the Abrahamic god”. And now you admit, oh, yes, “various different flavours of god-worship” are permissible. (Specifically, Schedule 20, para. 4(2)(b) “the collective worship … shall not be distinctive of any particular Christian or other religious denomination”. Thus, a SACRE could determine some vaguely deistic or panentheistic collective worship to be just fine.)
So, no, your paraphrase was not accurate.
I’m not asking you to quote multiple paragraphs; I’m asking you not to make sweeping generalisations that mischaracterise UK law.
/@
Your pointing to wriggle room available to the *school*, *if* that school has the ok from the local SACRE, does not change the fact that:
Most children sent to most state schools are legally required to worship the Christian god (or Abrahamic variant) and the child has no option about this.
Even that is different from what you said earlier.
But, no. What you are saying is inaccurate and imprecise.
The “best” you could claim is that some pupils in some schools will find that they are legally obliged to take part in an act of collective nondenominational Christian worship.
And then there is still a step to any of those pupils actually being legally required to worship the Christian God.
/@
How about we agree on *most* pupils in *most* schools will find themselves legally obliged to take part in an act of collective broadly Christian worship?
While you are correct that a SACRE *could* replace this with vague deistic worship (though this would still have to refer to a deity), the number of schools for which the SACRE has done this is tiny. (For a small number the flavour of the worship has been changed to Islamic or Jewish).
Better. But since you already noted that “about half the schools in the land dislike this law so much that they simply ignore it”, I don’t think you can say “*most* schools”.
And no pupil is being required to profess the Christian faith! (We are not under the rule of the first Queen Elizabeth.)
But I think we’re about as close as we’re going to get, now.
In any case, I will not disagree with you that any requirement for collective worship of any kind in schools is completely out of line. (Ditto faith schools, bishops in parliament, &c., &c.)
/@
First, the fact that many schools don’t enforce the law does not change the fact that the children are still *legally* *required* to do it!
Thus my “most” is accurate. Only in those very few schools where the SACREs have explicitly changed the requirement are they not so required.
Second, “profess the Christian faith” is not my wording or claim.
Third, my original wording was: “… laws requiring people to worship the Christian god”. I’m sticking to that. As a result of these laws, many children *are* legally required to participate in a collective act of broadly Christian worship
Fourth, your objections are little but pedantry.
There is a lot of wriggle room in Schedule 20
There is no wiggle room in the UK Department of Education instructions, which state [emphasis added]: “All maintained schools in England MUST provide a daily act of collective worship. This MUST reflect the traditions of this country which are, in the main, broadly Christian.”
Ant is the Pat Robertson of Britain, desperately trying to deny a policy that clearly pushes religion, and Christianity specifically, on to school students.
@ Coel
Oh, still?
1. No pupil can be legally required to take part in an act of collective worship that their school doesn’t, in fact, provide. Unless you think that the Act requires pupils to organise their own collective worship if the school fails to do so… ?
2. Where did I claim it was? But that is closer in meaning to an ostensible requirement to “worship the Christian deity” than the wording of the Act is.
3. I do not deny that “many children *are* legally required to participate in a collective act of broadly Christian worship”, and if you’d said that from the beginning I wouldn’t have demurred, but that is not what you originally said and I objected to.
4. Well, you clearly value accuracy and precision less than I do. As I said early, in regard to the law, good luck if you ever find your self in court.
I still think, as I said before, that we’re about as close as we’re going to get. Any further quibbling won’t serve any purpose and will likely get guillotined by Ceiling Cat.
@ Gary
It doesn’t matter how much you add emphasis to the DE “instructions” (I’m not sure where you’re quoting these from), it remains that that is not all that the Act says about collective worship, and it is not an absolute requirement of the Act that the collective worship is broadly Christian, as I’ve explicitly noted above (July 31, 2013 at 4:31 am). (Have you not been paying attention?)
Neither am I denying a policy that pushes religion, inappropriately, on to school students. I have explicitly stated my position on this more than once (July 30, 2013 at 7:20 am; July 31, 2013 at 6:17 am). (Have you really not been paying attention?)
If you’ve paid any attention to any of my tedious ramblings on this website in the past you will know that I am nothing like Pat Robinson regarding religion.
I consider equating me to Pat Robertson to be an egregious personal insult in violation of JAC’s roolz. I hope you know what you can do with this porcupine.
/@
Your tedious efforts to find legalistic loopholes in a set of laws and regulations that clearly have a broadly coercive effect on British state school students into accepting religious teachings and participating in religious rituals is very similar to what Pat Robertson and his followers do in the United States to try and sneak religion back into public schools.
PORCUPINE!
Oh, intercourse the porcupine.
b&
Nicely put.
Sorry…this was SUPPOSED to be in response to Linda Grilli Calhoun’s post:
“I always wonder if anyone who thinks that’s good ever stops to realize that each time they choose compliance over sincerity, it’s a tacit admission that their god is too stupid to tell the difference.”
“So why are politics fair game and religion not?”
In my experience, the folks who object to criticism of their religion are often no more tolerant of criticism of their politics.
Yep. Someone once called me “disrespectful” for calling Ronald Reagan a douchebag.
Sometimes the truth can be disrespectful.
I often take it as a compliment when people tell me I’m being disrespectful.
It’s a close cousin of the argument from authority.
Respect is earned, it’s not a given.
Yes. Disrespectful to douchebags.
Just curious, is there anyone whom you would hesitate calling a “douchebag” like, e.g., your two year-old child or your ninety year-old grandmother in her hospice bed?
Is it perfectly fine to go so far as to call someone a “douchebag” because it simply occurs to one to say that to someone, even if it is incredibly obvious that s/he is totally not a “douchebag” – to give voice to any and every thought that might come to mind?
I only ever call someone a douchebag (or douchenozzle) when they are, in my opinion, an example of that epithet. If you dislike my opinion (or, more likely, my choice of words), so be it.
We are not calling people on this site by that name. If you insist on using it, you’ll have to go to sites where that kind of language is tolerated and/or encouraged.
You’ll not use those words here, understand?
Certainly, Jerry.
“A central preoccupation with defending individual and group identity, with self-esteem, ’specialness’ and superiority, with achieving certainty or a kind of omniscience, and with sexual morality, which, in the strange logic of narcissism, is closely linked with these other endeavors.” — Tamas Pataki
But if telling someone that god doesn’t exist is mocking them, then surely telling an atheist that god does exist is mocking them too? That strikes right at the heart of our intellectual ability, insults the centuries of progress science has made in understanding the world, ridicules the effort of physicians treating cancer and knocks a way of thinking that recognises my observations as just as valid as anyone else’s regardless of race, sexual orientation or gender.
He behaves like a mediaeval pope reacting to a Copernicus don’t you think?
I think it is WRONG to allow people to be factually wrong & go unchallenged.
I do NOT think anyone has the right to be wrong.
I think we all have the right to be wrong. I hope we do because I usually manage it several times a day. What we don’t have is the right to deny others the ability to notice and comment, even if we find their comments embarrassing.
Perhaps Stanley’s real problem is that his religion embarrasses him.
Are you wrong with a vehement conviction in the face of evidence to the contrary? That is what “people of faith” are.
I try to be flexible, but I still often start out wrong. It seems to me it’s impossible not to be wrong sometimes — that’s why we have science, testable hypotheses and all that.
I would say that they have the right to BE wrong, but not the right to avoid the consequences of being wrong.
Ayn Rand?
/@
So you have cast iron proof that God doesn’t exist?
Cast iron chariot proof!
LHC and Planck. That about wraps it up for God (as described by any of the world’s established religions).
/@
Yes.
But first: which god?
I ask because there’re so many to choose from, and proofs against one are often irrelevant against proofs against a completely different god.
But I’m confident because I’ve yet to encounter a religious definition for the term, “god,” that is logically coherent. And I’ve encountered a great many such definitions; if there was anything out there that made more sense than “the dude who lives north of the North Pole,” I’d have heard about it by now.
b&
Do you have cast iron proof that Thor doesn’t? If not, why worship your god and not the Lord of Storms?
Silly question? Yes, indeed. Absolutely. As silly as yours, to be frank.
You don’t need proof of non-existence to arrive at the provisional conclusion that an entity doesn’t exist. If you did, you’d have to believe in everything everyone told you.
Do you believe in Thor/ley lines/homeopathy/demonic possession/Chupacabra/Vishnu/Baal/the Rainbow Serpent? I’m guessing you don’t – and if that’s the case, I’m guessing it’s not because you’ve had all those things conclusively disproven.
Seriously, this is freshman-level stuff.
Hey, lay off Thor, bro! He’s one I’d party with , you know?
Now sophomoric-level stuff.
Since “God” is a fairly incoherent concept, how can one have a strong opinion about its possible existence, one way or the other? Do you know for sure that blifinkz does not exist? Do you have any reason to think it does?
That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be.
Bingo!
+1 this needs to be pointed out more often
I feel sorry for people who think like Stanley. I understand if I transgress against my 3-year-old son’s imagined reality and he becomes upset. When adults demand that same license then I can only call it childish. If he is being serious that he needs his religion to get out of bed in the morning then he needs to get a good therapist and deal with his anxieties.
Nice.
RD’s new book out in 6 weeks
http://www.richarddawkins.net/news_articles/2013/7/25/book-tv-2013-book-expo-america-richard-dawkins-an-appetite-for-wonder
This is spot on. Well said, Jerry.
Yes! If that wine and cracker is blood and body, we can finally sequence the genome of our Lord and Savior! Maybe we’ll find the genetic basis for divinity.
The catlickers have some ready sorry apology for that, though. The bread and wine really, truly do become body and blood…but it’s a spiritual transmogrification, and the physicality of the bread and wine remain identical to bread and wine. But they’re really body and blood! But only if you click your heels three times and clap really hard and drop a Jackson in the collection plate.
Oops, I didn’t type that last one out loud, did I? No? Good. Now, keep chanting, “BLOOdy MAry” and soon you’ll get a visit from Beetlejuice. Trust me, and don’t mind me snooping through your bags.
b&
It’s a miracle!
It’s catastic!
it’s catastrophic! /j
Water, flour and grapes. It’s the Holy Trinity!
” Maybe we’ll find the genetic basis for divinity.”
We will, and it will turn out to be a much simpler molecule: an unassuming little two-carbon chain with an OH group on one end. Humble, yes, but divine nonetheless.
I’ll drink to that!
Highly spiritual, I guess.
Perhaps Tim Stanley should pray for the strength to resist the criticism? Or pray that unbelievers ‘see the light’. Or just turn the other cheek?
For someone so ‘energised’ by his faith he seems a little fragile.
He certainly can’t stick with one religion very long….
Yes.
I’m not sure what he’s complaining about. He says, You’re trying to take away God, etc. Somehow his faith is so fragile that a “high school” philosophical tweet threatens it? Another complaint “When you try to destroy someone’s faith”. Funny, isn’t that what his beloved Church did or tried to do, usually at Inquisition-point with every non-Christian people Europeans encountered? What about those people’s gods and the comfort they derived from them? Oh, I forget, the guy in the cracker is the only “real” god.
Again again and again I see so many religious believers who believe that religion should be exempt when it comes to freedom of expression.
They may not want to pass laws to restrict free speech per se in the U.S, but they wish they could somehow convince Dawkins and other atheist “bullies” to shut up.
The thing that is troubling about Stanley is how they want to undermine something that goes hand in hand with human progress. You can’t have progress without freedom of speech, and this includes the ridiculing of religion. It is those societies that allow the criticizing of religion that are now the most prosperous, democratic, technologically advanced places in the world.
It is those countries that have blasphemy laws that are poor, backward, and politically unstable, and also contribute little or nothing to scientific progress.
The progress of science and technology was built on the ability to ridicule false beliefs, and this includes religious beliefs.
Is that wishful thinking, ignorance or lying? If there are any churches for which that is true, they are certainly a tiny minority. And that sure as hell is not true for the catholic church.
If they are secure in their beliefs then why should they care one tiny bit about what a hellbound godless heathen like me, or Richard Dawkins, has to say about their religious beliefs?
Are you kidding?
It not only asks, it demands your compliance with any number of practices and beliefs. To say nothing of your money in the offering plate.
What’s a little extra delusion when you’ve already bought into so much already?
Though as usual there is no consensus among believers. Many are happy, adamant and proud in fact, to state that their god does impose prescribed behavioral requirements, divined by the church of course, and that it is their duty to abide by them.
“without asking anything in return”-
is that a collection plate?
I am so glad that I ignore twitter. It sounds like a playground for 8 year olds.
A can easily imagine someone substituting “the web” for “twitter”. Doesn’t really make sense.
I actually enjoy twitter from time to time. It can be used as a practice tool for debating because it forces you to be clear and concise.
More often than not though, it’s a mess. 🙂
There were some great tweets about the Fox “News” interview with Reza Aslan about why a scholar who is Muslim would want to write a book about Jesus.
Think of Twitter as a huge digital cocktail party.
/@
I am more of a dinner, desert and after dinner drink guy. Why fill up on hors d’oeuvre and cocktails to distract from the main course?
So the Torygraph is trying to double-up on the Guardian’s CiF column and trolling for hits?
Great.
“… you’re trying to take away the X that gets me up in the morning, gets me through the day and helps me sleep at night.”
If X = a belief held in the absence of evidence by a large group of people for a long enough time, then you are bad for criticizing. If X = drugs or alcohol or food or any other obsession/addiction/crutch, or a belief held by cults, unsophisticated people, cranks, enemies, etc, then not bad.
Religion, the ultimate “Mother’s little helper?”
I wonder if Stanley thinks that people without faith are superhuman, with the strength to get up in the morning, get through the day, and sleep at night without the tenuous crutch of needing supernatural help? Are we atheists more sensitive, more valorous, more mentally fit and healthy than the weak, trembling, pitiful folk who can’t live in this world without thinking there must be another more important one out there somewhere? Are those without a dependency on God simply more robust?
Naw — they never go there, do they? We’re never stronger; we’re debilitated. Atheists apparently get through life without faith because we are hollow, arrogant people whose inner lives are empty and whose outer lives are doomed to the trivial. No offense; they’re not judging. God does that.
So they get to have it both ways. Their fragile delicacy is a weapon they can bash over our heads.
Yes, sometimes I think there is some dehumanizing going on when believers think about atheists. You saw it in Rex Murphy’s piece yesterday and you hear it regularly when you see atheists speaking to believers. Often when believers describe atheists as “believing nothing”, they aren’t making a mistake in understanding the definition of atheism, they are implying that atheists embody the characteristics of sociopaths.
Well put.
Indeed well put.
It’s often not subtle at all, though. Atheist is for a great many religious people not much more than a synonym for “evil”, and they talk and act accordingly.
One of the hardest things to overcome if you grew up religious is shaking this word association. Long after you stop believing all of the nonsense it can still be hard to identify with the word “atheist” because in religious circles that word is accorded a rung below “Nazi”.
SMBC proposed this syllogism (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2673#comic):
“If P is false, I will be sad.
I do not wish to be sad.
Therefore P is true.”
Here, P = “God exists”.
It is really a very immature way to reason but when all your evidence about something consists of personal feelings and preferences, everything stays subjective. So you tend to perceive the criticisms as personally addressed.
Desnes Diev
I was wondering about that. In my field, when someone needs to do a little “X” to get up in the morning, it invariably means the person is admitting to some serious brain damage.
“When you insult my faith you go right to the heart of what makes me me”
Fake.
“When you insult my faith you go right to the heart of what makes me me”
Then it appears his faith makes him a frightened, oversensitive, mollycoddled child.
Which is precisely the way the RCC wants him.
As much as I agree with the sentiment of the post, and often react incredulously (and, yes, sometimes derisively) to things that I see written from the ID/creationist/’believer’ perspective, I don’t think you soften folks up to listen to your position on something – anything – with sarcasm. Yet this is the most common thread throughout our public discourse, as far as I can tell. If I am to be honest, I know that my mind is not prepared to listen after first reading what amounts to calling me an idiot at worst, or made mildly fun of, at best. I don’t think that works for the majority. I admit that sarcasm is kind of ‘knee-jerk’ for many, me included, but I don’t see how it can work as a general strategy. To me, it only really works for those who already agree with your point of view, which accomplishes nothing. And I should admit that I didn’t read all the previous comments so it may be that others have already said the same.
This is not true. The point of sarcasm and ridicule is not to change the mind of the IDiot/creationist. The point is to demean the idea of creationism so that people who are bystanders and haven’t really thought much about the subject can see that stupid ideas are quite simply that… stupid ideas.
Do you have the same objection to black magic? Would you object to a cartoon that made fun of the idea that burying a penny by the corner of your house under a full moon will cure warts?
Ridiculous ideas deserve ridicule.
I think you’re right that sarcasm isn’t a good way to change someone’s mind about his religion, but in a debate that person and his sarcastic opponent aren’t the only actors. There are observers who may be on the fence — whose minds (unlike the true believer’s) are open to persuasion. Good, funny sarcasm can be effective.
Around my neck of the woods a good parody/sarcasm is often used to defuse a potentially delicate situation.
Sometimes it’s the best way to get an honest debate started.
Agreed. A bit of humor can sometimes make the person see the silliness of the idea, while a mocking tone can make the person defensive.
This is the “accommodationist” position.
I agree with other commentors’ point about on-the-fence observers, but I personally would go further. I don’t agree with a rigid “attack vs. accommodate” strategy. I think it’s possible that each can be effective at different times, in different situations, with different people.
With people who are obviously entrenched in their religion, and especially with those who are trying to convince and convert ME, anything goes.
With people I perceive as asking honest questions and seeking to understand my views and possibly widen their own, I’m more likely to be gentle.
When I was still shrinking heads, a question I often asked my patients was, “Would you rather be right, or would you rather be effective?” L
This is an important point. It is rare to see gnu atheists telling folk like Larry Moran to stop trying to make progress by whatever-it-is that the Larry Morans of this world do. It is very common for the Larry Morans of the world to whine about the mean/strident/shrill gnus and try to make us JUST SHUT UP.
Greta Christna wrote a blog post on this subject some time ago. It is worth reviewing.
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/09/good-cop-bad-co.html
You must have a different Larry Moran in mind from the one the rest of us know.
I have only the kind that is exposed on this page. The kind that insists that confronting illegal religious activity in the courts is a bad idea. I’m wondering who the rest of you are and what your version is like.
Perhaps you’d like to read Larry Moran’s actual work then, instead of relying on a rarefied glimpse on a single isolated issue (it’s worth noting Larry’s from Canada, where both the national constitution and religious atmosphere are markedly different than in the USA).
I think it is entirely appropriate to respond to comments on a web page, particularly simple-minded and sarcastic comments like those Dr. Moran has made here, without being directed to go read his opus elsewhere. I’m sure it is a marvelous opus. But here he is making foolish comments. And calling them out for being foolish does not require further study at sandwalk.
This has to be the first time I’ve ever been labeled an ‘accomodationist’. I teach evolutionary biology in Mississippi and was able to get my upper division EB course included as a requirement for all Biology majors. I teach Comparative Anatomy which students (so I’m told) refer to as EB 2 and will teach Animal Behavior this fall which will undoubtedly become known as EB 3. Even though I don’t have students stand up and walk out on me I do teach a large proportion of students that don’t think evolution is real – in both my intro (largely non-majors) and upper division courses. I have actual data, though, that shows that more students in my introductory biology course accepting evolution by the end of it than at the beginning of the course. Though I have no way of showing it, I think it’s at least partly because I don’t get in their face about. I just keep hammering away with example after example and pointing out ‘see how this fits?’. I am, by my own admission, rather relentless (for Mitch Hedberg fans, recall his comment about playing tennis against a wall). I also tell some jokes here and there in my lectures. I haven’t done the same thing with my evolutionary biology course (all biology majors in contrast to the one I mentioned above) and I cannot yet show that I get the same results in preliminary sampling. Too early to tell, really, but that’s the sense that I have. I’m not always consistent, I admit – I slip up now and again and get exasperated with students and say something I wish I hadn’t. But for the most part, it appears to have at least some of the desired effect.
Having said all that, I do see the point several have made about the potential effect of comments on ‘observers’ – but I am not sure that I believe that sarcasm is likely to be effective, even in those cases. Would ‘fence-sitters’ consistently respond positively to remarks that they might view as ‘cutting’? I don’t know. I don’t suppose anyone who’s commented has the data to support their view but maybe I’m wrong. I do need to think about this more, that’s for sure.
It would be completely inappropriate for you to be sarcastic about religion in your biology class — as inappropriate as Hedin promoting religion in his “science” class.
Twitter is a different thing altogether.
Exactly what I was about to write….
b&
Yes, I think there are different tools you use for different circumstances and it’s also about the amount of investment you are willing to make. With friends, I usually use a longer term strategy and softer approach because I’ve got a lot of time and I also value the friendship. With others, I may change my approach depending how what I think will work and whether I care if they hate me for it 🙂
Well, I’d agree that sarcasm would be generally inappropriate in a classroom situation.
/@
Most of my college professors would beg to differ!
Many people keep saying that, but there really is no good evidence to suggest that ridicule is ineffective or even detrimental at trying to change peoples minds. But, there is good evidence to suggest that it does have some efficacy.
Extrapolating from the observation that you as an individual don’t like to be ridiculed, and that it tends to make you dismiss anything that person says, is not good support for your claim.
1) There are people that claim that they have been shamed by direct ridicule into reevaluating, and then changing their position.
2) There are even more people that claim to have had their minds changed indirectly by witnessing other peoples’ ideas, similar to their own, being ridiculed. Particularly when they are “on the fence.”
3) People rarely change their minds, right then and there, when directly confronted about strongly held beliefs, whether their beliefs are treated with respect or not. In either case it usually takes time and it is usually bystanders observing an exchange by others that are most influenced.
4) It is all about the ideas. Silly ideas need to be countered. If they aren’t progress is stifled and, going by history, you pretty much always end up with a society that most decent people would prefer not to live in.
I invite you to search the internet for deconversion stories and see how many support your claim.
In addition to all of the excellent points made, ridicule can often be the only thing that can get through to somebody.
The religious are stuck in a classic case of cognitive dissonance. And the only way out is to either lessen the pain of aligning beliefs with observations or increase the pain of believing in falsehoods.
The religious institutions do everything they can to ensure that coming to grips with reality is as overwhelmingly painful as they can possibly make it; in many cases, you’re not only ostracized but your very livelihood is put in jeopardy.
So increasing the pain of staying in the delusion can be a critical part of breaking the spell. Not just suspecting but knowing that you’re a blinkered fool for buying into the bullshit makes it a choice between being complicit in fraud and nobly sacrificing your comfort for your dignity and integrity. For many, that’s enough incentive to escape.
Cheers,
b&
I suspect that the effectiveness of ridicule has a tipping point in the positive direction — meaning that one or two people laughing at your beliefs is bullies behaving badly, but a significant proportion of people in your culture rolling their eyes is taken as a warning sign. Maybe you really are being stupid.
When religious beliefs are spelled out flatly to nonbelievers they always sound a lot less plausible (and a lot more ridiculous) than when they’re bandied around a friendly forum and allowed to remain fuzzy. Thus the anger and fury often directed towards simple requests to just define or explain what, exactly, they think God is. Curiosity, clarity, and consistency are the direct enemies of faith-based thinking. And yet the spiritual, at heart, usually want to consider themselves to be reasonable — THE reasonable ones. So avoid the conflict and change the subject. Demand respect.
But if someone has laughed then changing the subject isn’t as effective. And if a lot of people are laughing (or at least stifling their smiles and assuming the polite expression of tolerance generally taken towards the weak-minded but harmless) then it’s hard to maintain the fiction that you are the envy of those who cannot be so devout. The respect isn’t automatic. You have to see what they see. There are too many critics not to do a mental cross-check and re-align of what is, and isn’t, kinda silly.
“Yes, I’m a fool for Christ” or whatever only goes so far.
I don’t see how that public process works in a digital crowd, though. I’m not saying it doesn’t but it doesn’t seem to me that it directly transfers at first glance.
I’m not sure. Accumulation, presumably. The friend who cocks a quizzical eyebrow at you is mentally added to the overheard debate between a stranger and a street preacher which is added to Bill Maher’s monologue last night which is added to a column by Dawkins in a mainstream paper and eventually the rude and rare Village Atheist is gradually replaced by “I know people will laugh at me but…”
I think all wide cultural shifts are accumulations of ‘digital’ moments. Wouldn’t they have to be?
Why not? If a significant percentage, or a majority, of what you read / hear on the internet from other people regarding some issue is aligned in one direction, I don’t see how that is different than the same thing happening at any kind of corporeal social gathering.
Basically what Sastra is talking about is what is sometimes referred to as the “Overton Window.” If anything I would think that the internet amplifies social interaction which seems likely to increase the rate, and perhaps magnitude, of changes in the Overton Window.
So why don’t you try reasoning a christian into accepting reality? I suspect a good portion of the atheists have tried that at one time or other. The christian that is buried deeply in jebus meat won’t allow themselves to hear. Those that will listen have already acknowledge the inconsistency of their gods and seeing others mock those inconsistencies will likely reinforce what they are beginning to see.
However, you should probably try whatever you think will work. Maybe you will find something that those of us that have tried didn’t find. If you can show better results, others will notice and find interest. I just think you will find the christian wall of delusion that won’t allow for reason and rationality. Besides, it’s not a particularly interesting prospect to continually challenge the christian stupidity but, it is something that we must do or the christian will lead the world to the travesties of what is hopefully the past. I prefer to have some fun along the way from time to time.
If it isn’t to your liking there are fatheists that you might fill more comfortable with. Out of curiosity though, do you really think we haven’t already considered what you are proposing? Because seriously……
For years I had an amicable exchange with an acquaintance who would periodically make claims that, for instance “there is abundant evidence on the Moon and Mars of extraterrestrial life forms.”
For quite a long time I thought he was sending me up but, I gradually came to realize that he was doing nothing of the sort; he was/is serious!
So, I went all Socratic or Sagan like on him asking for the source of his information; of course, none has ever been forthcoming, and a short while ago he terminated the thread saying it had become too personal.
And that coming from someone who I had to continually rebuff when he repeatedly said things such as “Everyone has Gods whether consciously or not”, by telling him to stop laying his wishful thinking on me and take my word for it when I say I have no religious beliefs what so ever.
Over the entire period he didn’t shift his ideas one iota, and in retrospect I wonder why I wasted my time trying to debate with him at all.
Yes, I think atheists who complain that “it’s all right to laugh at X, but it’s not all right to laugh at religion” — with X being some form of superstition, pseudoscience, or ‘woo’ — forget that no, it’s usually NOT all right to laugh at woo. Not for the believers, and more often than not it’s not okay to the general public either. “They have the RIGHT to their beliefs.” Mock astrology and it’s like a mutually-assured destruction pact is not being honored.
From what I can tell the exact same religious defense mechanisms are in place for the Loch Ness monster, ghosts, and Moon Men. The eternal whine of faith (“criticism is meeeaaaan!”) applies towards anything which the believer thinks they believe in because they are “special.”
Look. They’re more open-minded than you. And now you are trying to close their minds by bringing up good alternative ideas.
“Mock astrology…”
/@
Brilliant. 😉
I just knew there were good reasons for liking Brian Cox.
Its interesting that none of his complaints rely on the content of his belief. This argument applies just as much to the FSM, Jo Bu…and all the faiths that christians have mocked and derided through the ages.
Yes, Stanley’s position seems to be that if a belief is comforting to someone it should not be criticized period, regardless of whether there’s sufficient reason to believe it’s true.
Stanley also ignores the fact that his exposure to criticism of his beliefs by Dawkins and the other “gnu atheists” is entirely optional. Dawkins is not shouting from the rooftops or banging on people’s front doors and forcing people to listen to him against their will. He writes books and makes TV shows and sends tweets. Stanley is perfectly free to ignore these things if he doesn’t want to hear what Dawkins has to say.
Sounds like it’d apply to a heroin addiction just as well.
Why is he followig Richard Dawkins in teirst place, if he doesn’t want to see Dawkins’ tweets, don’t subscribe to him. Quite simple really.
Of the some 2000 or so comments posted in response to Stanley’s piteous whining about big meanie atheist trash-talking Dawkins, by far the most frequent (and consistently recommended) were those that pilloried Stanley on that exact point.
Yes, it does rather seem that Stanley went out of his way to be offended.
This perfectly illustrates what I’ve been trying to get across to Larry Moran over several posts; you can’t expect to change the minds of the deeply religious using reason; their belief is all mixed up with their personal identity and any change to that identity for the negative is too painful for them to deal with so they just dig in harder.
Rational discussions are not what these people are up for because they do not value rationalism.
I think you’ve nailed it. Having built one’s identity around an ideology, no one likes to hear they might be wrong, or worse, be ridiculed for it. Expressing contempt for what people take central to their identity often leads to increased resistance to change. In prying people loose from a worldview which they see as their very essence and reason for being it helps to be diplomatic. Make friends or establish common ground if you can, then gradually introduce the tough questions.
But believers think they do value rationalism. They flip-flop between “I’m proud to look like a loony” and “no, you’re the one who isn’t making any sense.” They’re conflicted — externally and, usually, internally.
That’s why we have to start on common ground: valuing truth. I think sometimes ridicule can actually be an appeal to common ground because humor assumes that both sides can contrast the ideal with the reality — and find it funny.
I dunno. Many of the believers I’ve dealt with (and I include those who are new agey) criticize me for having “a scientific mind”. They aren’t interested in what I consider “truth”. Truth for them is an inner experience and to them I, poor soul, don’t get it.
But even New Agers (and I’m picking a fundamentalist extreme here I know) recognize the distinction between experience and interpretation of experience. That’s one of their favorite weapons they use on other people — they’re seeing the Big Picture and thus putting everything in proper perspective and place and getting it right.
Most believers are nice folks who care more for the idea that spirituality unites people rather than divides them. They want to focus on that. But since it really doesn’t — since their system actually does the opposite — then they’ve got a problem. One I think we can exploit.
Good point. Do I believe in UFOs? Yes. Do I believe that extraterrestrials are visiting Earth? NO!!
I think we are probably in agreement about the larger point that shared value is the way to influence people. I use this method all the time at work as I need to convince people of stuff almost every day.
I think where we may differ is the level of receptiveness to reason. It’s almost like you need to trick them into it.
What makes you think he is trying to change te minds of the deeply religious? Like Dawkins, he is trying to convince the fence-sitters.
Have you read what Larry has been saying here and on the other posts that Jerry linked to? He has been arguing that enforcing the Establishment Clause is a waste of time and instead efforts should concentrate solely on “convincing school boards and teachers that creationism is nonsense….”
Many of those teachers and school boards ARE the deeply religious. They aren’t fence sitters.
“When you insult my faith you go right to the heart of what makes me me.”
Dr. Stanley doesn’t seem to know who “me” is – first Baptist, then Anglican, then Roman Catholic… What’s next?
Let’s send him a copy of The God Delusion and find out.
Well, at least he’s expended some intellectual effort to find the Christian denomination that provides the best warm fuzzies…
/@
He needs to take the beliefnet survey (and not cheat)!
Yes, he is confused…look, he put a space in the word “meme.”
A mischievous and ultimately pretty empty post from Stanley.
Firstly he conflates Dawkins’ gentle mockery of ideas with some pretty vicious and downright criminal trolling that has hit the headlines in the UK. In truth there is no connection at all.
Secondly his argument (such as it is) seems to come down to little more than “this hurts and offends me therefore it should be stopped.”
This is of course the argument of religious (and political) censors throughout much of the world and doesn’t really deserve to be engaged with.
Agreed. I know that the definition of trolling is subjective, but I didn’t know feature creep towards incorporating everything considered disruptive outside of an internet forum. So now I see how the attempted conflation came about. (E.g. Dawkins’s first tweet was not tagged.)
And, pray tell, how does Stanley envision critique of religion if we can’t include the very basis for atheism (no evidence for magic, some conclusive evidence against)? No one would take Stanley’s censorship ideas as some tired, age-old attempt at trolling against atheism, they would instead point out how misguided they are.
Yep, this statement clearly demonstrates the fundamental problem with “faith:” it deliberately confuses a factual conclusion with personal identity. Whether or not God exists is not just a serious question about reality and an objective attempt to find truth. Oh no. It’s also a way to tell good people apart from bad people because the conclusion is imbedded in a story. Bias is the new unbiased.
In their minds “Does God exist?” has become “Once upon a time there was a person (me) who was seeking God … and other persons who were blocking this knowledge.” By mental trick an honest intellectual endeavor turns into a way of validating the self. And this happens while insisting that it’s the other way around. Of course atheists should — and do — object to this. It’s wrong and dangerous on multiple fronts.
Theology is the art form of category error. Whining complaints about having their faith challenged are coming from thinking that the Identity Smorgasbord model of diversity (“no right, no wrong; just different — celebrate variety!”)applies to religion. But if religion really rests on fact claims and isn’t just a form of therapy or group cohesion then criticizing critics is a form of bullying. You cut off dissent and make yourself immune to correction. Won’t matter how often you call this a form of humility. It’s not.
Bottom line, if you think changing your mind about an interpretation of evidence is akin to dying and losing your “self” — then watch out. Not only can’t you grow and change and adapt; you can’t find common ground with those who disagree. Their values are too different. They’re not of your tribe. They are the Other.
Faith is believing based on evidence which is insufficient for a cold, heartless, fearful person — but it’s enough for you and me! Yes, I know that people of faith interpret this as an unmitigated positive. But it looks very different from the outside. It elevates believers above all accountability and damns the nonbeliever beyond redemption unless they too choose to become a different kind of person and choose to believe.
Here’s a question for Stanley: do you care more if your religion is true or only that it’s useful?
Think very hard about how you answer that.
“…you can’t find common ground with those who disagree.Their values are too different. They’re not of your tribe. They are the Other.”
This suggests that ideology experienced as one’s core personal identity plays a role in securing one’s safe place in the tribe or in-group, so it’s most likely a bit of universal human psychology, not restricted to religionists. Those of us who are from WEIRD cultures (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) perhaps identify more with empiricism as a mode of inquiry than with any particular knowledge claim. We understand we could be wrong, and accept that as a basic condition of our identity.
“To someone in a WEIRD cultural environment — and the educated upper-middle class in America, Haidt claims, is the WEIRDest environment of all — it is very hard to understand how people could feel morally outraged by an inept video that insults divinity. It seems so counter-intuitive. The incomprehension works the other way, too. To someone in a non-WEIRD environment, it is very hard to understand how people could feel morally justified defending sacrilegious expression. Haidt’s account suggests that the differences between these cultures are going to be extremely difficult to negotiate. Intuitions are stubborn things.”
– Mark Movsesian at First Things
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2012/10/10/weird-values/
I agree; we’re appealing to the universal values of the Enlightenment and there are many cultural forces which fight against recognizing these values as ‘universal.’ But I think Stanley (all Stanleys) are as WEIRD as we are … and are fighting what will be a losing battle.
Not with us. Within themselves.
Eventually. I hope.
Late to the party…so §, and maybe I’ll skim to get caught up….
b&
Dr. Stanley’s rant reminds me a bit of the display of butt-hurt feelings a pair of younger cousins displayed the Christmas I figured out Santa isn’t real and told them about it. But equating criticism of delusion to rape?
There remain places on the planet where criticism of religion is penalized by the state with imprisonment/torture/death.
Quite noticeably of late is legislation enacted in several nations and proposed in many more, as well as in some US states and at the UN, which censors speech critical of religion with penalties of fines and imprisonment.
Unwarranted censorship for purpose of institutionalizing undeserved special privilege is less uncivilized than executing/torturing/imprisoning for the same purpose. All of the above are criminal actions, establishing a direct relationship to the act of rape that criticism of delusional thinking does not share.
wish I’d written ‘However, all of the above are criminal actions …’ instead
Argg, cry me a river!
Here you go:
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DksSPZTZES0)
urrg *loads gun*
It is paramont that we ridicule those that set demands that religious orthodoxy become legal policy. As an example a hospital receiving special tax exemption should not be able to claim that their delusional belief in a god gives them the right to refuse to administer medical treatment to our citizens. Atheist ‘wack-jobs’ should not be the only ones that feel this is wrong.
Believing in things for emotional reasons is intellectual laziness.
Exactly. Stanley isn’t paying attention to what he’s saying. He’s been too used to confusing what must be true for psychological reasons for what must be true in reality.
Atheists who used to be religious can let the pious in on a little secret. When you go from believer to non-believer, it’s not because you “lost your faith;” it’s because you “changed your mind.”
Everything flips … and it can do so quickly or (more often) very slowly. When the questions about religion become real questions about the facts and not just pseudo-questions about your own ability to remain steadfast and loyal to a commitment, then doubts no longer seem like they’re coming from your tendencies to be morally weak. They’re coming from your conscience. You don’t want to have faith in what is wrong; you want to be able to change your mind.
So we are not trying to “destroy someone’s faith.” It’s not personal. In fact, we’re actually on their side! The idea that faith is a virtue needs to be dismantled: even the faithful deep down know it’s not. They want God to be real and they want to be reasonable to think so. It’s their Achille’s heel.
There’s really something special there, about one’s commitments, and how this can develop one’s sense of identity. Especially if these involve shared institutions.
So the crux of the problem seems to be the opposite of drug rehab; it is made worse by committing yourself to an institution.
Not just committing yourself to an institution — committing yourself to a belief. And standing by that belief as if you were standing by your very best friend or your highest values.
It would be like conflating the existence of the Loch Ness Monster with the desire to protect endangered species. Every attempt to point out that the lake is too small, the evidence is too thin, or what-have-you related to the actual topic would be immediately interpreted as an attack on Nature.
“They took sonar readings of Loch Ness and found nothing.”
“Why do you want to kill baby pandas? And my dog?? You can’t make me kill my dog!!”
When you insult the Loch Ness Monster you go right to the heart of what makes me me. You animal hater you.
Except committing oneself to a belief doesn’t make such a snappy punch-line 😉 I guess my jokes tend to be like the Jonestown massacre; the punch line is too long.
I do thank you for your insights, Sastra – they are a delight to read. Always.
Using ridicule against religion is akin to adding red peppers to an appropriate dish – it improves the flavor.
Dawkins is so bloody ignorant – God doesn’t spend His time on matters as trivial as finding people parking spaces. He’s too busy determining the outcome of professional football games.
And the Grammy Awards.
The half-truth of Stanley’s claim (religion bound up with identity) would have more credibility if it weren’t for the fact that the most stubborn religious believers have !*no*! ability to distinguish between thoughtful reflective criticisms of their faith and material that can be fairly characterized as cheap sarcasm, and conflate the two.
Nearly 15 years ago I took a peek at the website of the Catholic League and was dismayed to find on their list of recent examples of anti-Catholic “prejudice” a slightly crude joke by a sports announcer and….Garry Wills’ book “Papal Sin”. The latter is the fruit of years of thoughtful reflection. How on earth is this an example of prejudice?? (“Postjudice” would be a more appropriate term- it ought to be a real world.)
When your opponent can’t tell these apart, then there’s little point in worrying if you are threatening their sense of identity.
“When you insult my faith you go right to the heart of what makes me me. “
Remember how aggrieved and aggressive those Catholics were when a student did not consume the Communion wafer according to schedule? IIRC, they physically attacked him, tried to get him expelled, etc. Because he did not give their sacred icon the respect they felt was required. He insulted their faith, and therefore their very being.
Imagine being a Hindu and seeing Catholics eat beef hamburgers on the street. Imagine being the director of The Hindu League contemplating whether McDonalds advertising is religious defamation and should be banned.
Imagine if Hindus had the religious sensitivities of Christians and the cultural responses of radical violent Muslims. Every fast food joint in the country would be a smoking ruin.
And I wonder what Dr Tim Stanley would then have to say about religious respect.
Holy cow!
/@
Actually, something akin to the mythical Hindu League once did manage to successfully sue McDonald’s for (I think) false advertising; they were using fat derived from cows in fries advertised as vegetarian. Also, in the early days of KFC in India, there indeed were some small protests from (mostly political) outfits, on religious grounds.
Dawkins will stop being so brash when people stop telling him ‘God Delusion’ made them snap out of their stupors. But that will never happen because his book works.
Many years ago when I was a sniveling little wuss — I’m not little anymore — and someone threatened to thump me for my big mouth and general obnoxiousness, I would say, “You can’t hit me, I’m wearing glasses.”
Doctor Tim Stanley is using the “disability” defence used by cowards like me and him since time immemorial. He asks his opponent to play fair while giving himself permission to play dirty. Ingenious.
When you identify with your beliefs, you can yell “ad hominem!” if anyone questions them. You should not identify with your beliefs, only with how you came by them. Many people don’t understand that.
In my experience not only do most people who have their beliefs questioned react viscerally, most people have never had their beliefs questioned. I see no reason to be rude about it (and it can be bullying), but it is vital to the New Atheist project that believers be challenged publicly. It’s in no one’s interest to walk around being right, just because no one has ever said they are wrong.
For crying out loud! If Jesus ever existed he was not a carpenter from Palestine. The name Palestine was applied to Israel by Romans only after the Jewish revolt and destruction of the second temple(66–73 CE).
Elvis Presely was born in Mississippi, but it wasn’t always called Mississippi; presumably you wouldn’t object to me calling him “a mississippian rock star.”
Huh? But it WAS called “Mississippi” at all times from his birth to his death.
The conclusion might be different if it was never called that until 30 years after he died…would you call Miloš
Obrenović and Karadjordje Petrović “Yugoslavians”?
That’s not what igor was suggesting, of course. The example fits:
For crying out loud! If Elvis ever existed he was not a rockstar from Mississippi. The name Mississippi was applied to the southern US by settlers only after the American revolution (1775-1872).
It doesn’t matter when who named what. It matters whom your talking to and the geographic terminology they prefer.
….yet Memphis could have been known to both Elvis AND Jesus. Hmmmm.
So, Jesus (accepting he exists) was an Israeli?
/@
* existed
” The name Palestine was applied to Israel by Romans only after the Jewish revolt and destruction of the second temple(66–73 CE).”
This is historically inaccurate. As Wikipedia notes:
Reblogged this on Pocatello Freethought Society.
This is a version of the “If you don’t respect Christianity then you don’t respect ME because Christianity is at the core of who I am.”
For many years I had been active, and welcomed, on another site’s subforum dealing with religion. One member, a pastor, was truly a great guy and who was doing all sorts of really good work with the disadvantaged. We got along very, very well.
He sometimes became plaintive about the idea that, although I professed to think highly of him, this simply couldn’t be the case as I routinely derided and argued against Christianity. He thought it disingenuous of me to to say I admired him, while disdaining Christianity, since he believed Christianity had made him the person he is. If I thought the bible was worth contempt and derision, then I must think the same of him since he was what he was, due to his beliefs about Christianity.
I had to keep explaining to him: But this is where we disagree. You think that you are good because of what you’ve read in the bible. I think you are bringing YOUR OWN goodness as a human being to the bible, and using that good character to make your way through all the bad parts, and concentrate on only those parts that are consonant with what YOU find to be good, wise and fulfilling. The things you do which I truly admire, I believe come from you and not the bible.
And I don’t think you are dumb for being a Christian. I think you are wrong about many of your conclusions concerning the bible, but then I’m certainly mistaken in some things I believe. It’s a human condition. I don’t think you are an idiot for being wrong sometimes anymore than (I hope) you don’t think I’m an idiot. And there are vast numbers of Christians who I’m happy to admit are smarter than I am, and you’re probably one of them.
The fact he immersed himself in the claims and mores of bible and came out supporting homosexual rights, charity, friendship with
atheists, pluralism, etc was a tribute to him, not to the bible.
Vaal
Great story! And well told.
+1
“When you insult my faith you go right to the heart of what makes me me”
Thats because your god *is* you. you’re just talking to yourself when you pray.
+1
Lady Claire Gurney: “How do you know you’re God?”
Jack Arnold Alexander Tancred Gurney, 14th Earl of Gurney: Simple. “When I pray to Him, I find I am talking to myself.”
Peter O’Toole, <>, 1972
Here, at 2:30: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meI6f258RKY
Sorry…I didn’t realize that the chevrons that usually pass for italics would disappear the text. The 1972 film is “The Ruling Class.”
I enjoyed and agreed with the piece (I mean the critique of Stanley’s piece) but can I just pedantically object to the characterisation of Jesus as a ‘Palestinian carpenter’? Jesus, if he existed, was the son (or stepson) of a carpenter, according to the Biblical account. There is no evidence that HE ever practised carpentry. The notion of him as a carpenter is a romantic myth. Of course the whole thing is a myth, but let’s not pile myth on myth!
Why not? Isn’t that what they are for?
Thank you.
& see #42!
Why do agnostics, atheists, and Humanists seem to go out of their way to challenge religions these days? Could very well be that their rational stance has been challenged by believers for ages upon ages! A friend complained that she can’t go on an atheist web site or respond to an atheist blog without Christian trolls coming on to abuse the “godlessness” that exists there and tell them all they are going to Hell. Then there are those who claim to “love” atheists and scare them into Heaven by threatening them, again, with Hell. And let’s not forget those who simply feel so threatened by atheists that they feel compelled to demonize and dehumanize them every step of the way.
Most freethinkers I know would prefer to simply be left alone, but the “militance” of “the new atheism”, I suspect, is the result of being fed up with the intrusive judgments of religious types, mostly fundie Christians. They are speaking out and talking back!
You hit the nail on the head. Gnu atheism is a response to the activities of political religion. In the US it is a response to insane religiously-motivated positions that came to prominence in the latter part of the 20th century and into the 21st. And it is a response to Islam motivating people to fly planes into buildings.
One thing that concerns me, though, is that religion alone is not a threat to reason. ANY ideology that reaches a level of an unquestionable absolute imperative–theistic or otherwise–is bad news of the worst kind. Atheists point to the harm religion has done in the name of some god or other, and we are more than aware of most of them. But, Christians can and do respond that great harm has been done by atheistic regimes such as Stalin’s or Pol Pot’s. Both are right.
The problem is allowing an idea to possess us rather than possessing the idea and always questioning and exploring that idea. It’s part of the human quest (illusory though it may be) for certitude. And any ideology, philosophy, or religion can fall prey to it. That’s why I value pure science. Any idea is up for grabs and open to challenge, even pet notions. Some bad ideas are harder to overcome than others because those who held them had too much of themselves invested in them. But, truth will out eventually in the scientific arena.
I trust you mean “religion is not the only threat” because religion by little old self can very much be a threat.
I don’t know of any atheist who think that religion is the only threat we face on our little rock in space.
Atheists are not immune to the kind of intellectual errors and cognitive failures that cause so many people to embrace religion. Atheists who understand the crucial importance of skepticism, evidence and critical thinking for evaluating religious claims often disregard those standards when it comes to their own political or ideological beliefs.
I think it is actually worse that you describe. Christians usually attribute these sorts of despotic regimes as motivated by atheism which is a fallacy. For example Stalin modified Marxism and then used it to form his own tyrannical regime. Atheism was secondary or even tertiary.
I think your larger point is that dogma = bad and many atheists would agree. You can even go so far as calling despotic regimes like Stalin’s “state religion”.
I think I’m gonna start labeling myself as an old atheist.
That oughta confuse some of the religionists.
Well, I don’t know about you but I could easily pass as an old new atheist.
Fast approaching the big 4-0 so I guess I could pass for one as well. Especially when I don’t get my 8 to 10 hours of sleep and my 4 gallons of coffee during the day.
Wait — 40 is old?
Shit. Why didn’t anybody tell me I’m already a geezer?
b&
Nah, I’ve been told 40 is the new 30.
Wait — you mean I have to go back to part-time underpaid jobs teaching disinterested teenagers at a community college and doing phone tech support for Mac Performas?
Damn…if I knew that, I might have stayed in my 20s as a perpetual student….
b&
I pulled that off for most of my 20s 🙂
Some say 40 is the new 30. I’m not sure I believe them. 😉
Damn it. Diana beat me to it.
“Wait – 40 is old?”
Well, it must be true, since such sentiments are uttered by those under 30, eh? 😉
A good response is to ask them if they wish to make it to at least our post-40 ages, and to remind them that not everyone does.
They did. But your hearing-aid batteries had died.
Again.
What’d you say? I can’t hear you. Hang on, let me grab my glasses.
There. Much better. Now what’d you say wanted the WD-40 for?
b&
NOT 44, 40!
You want to tune to a 444 A instead of a 440 A? Fine by me. Now, if only I can figure out how to adjust this electronic gadget…it was so much easier with tuning forks….
b&
Young whippersnapper.
Hehe. Good to know. 🙂
[my emphasis]
/@
One adjective less?
The strong sense of self-identity religion gives people is a bug, not a feature. I can read that quote by that poor woman and feel like weeping. Nothing real has been lost. Nothing. All the experiences and relationships and values in life in general and their life in particular stand just as true and real and firm as they ever did — and yet believers have been systematically brainwashed into thinking no, it has all “crumbled” and they are now “naked.” They have no value of their own; it was only a reflected glory.
It reminds me of when people believed so strongly in the nobility of bloodlines that finding out that an ancestor was illegitimate and not a true descendent of Bob the Conqueror meant their entire life now had no value and they might as well jump from a cliff. It would be quaint if it weren’t so heartbreaking.
Love the “reflected glory” line.
As for jumping off a cliff, that’s not necessarily heartbreaking…just think of it as evolution in action. 😉
Dumbo. Feather.
/@
Their obliviousness to their centuries of persecution of non-believiers, often in the form of actual violence, which continues on today in many places, is stunning. Their obliviousness to their open hostility, has any atheist not been told they are “evil”, “deserve to go to Hell” by some believer?, is a remarkable display of self delusion.
Complaints that atheists are hurting their feelings is a bit like the lynch mob complaining that the guy with a noose around his neck said something that hurt their feelings. Really? The temerity is unbelievable.
If atheists are ever hostile, they are just reflecting back a diminished and pale version of what they have received, and continue to receive, from believers.
Get the log out of your own eye, why don’t you?
“Conventional people are roused to fury by departure from convention, largely because they regard such departure as a criticism of themselves.” Bertrand Russell
I recently saw Frontline’s “Two American Families”. I was astounded by the faith in God one of the families held. When asked “How can you believe in God when all this has happened to you” the wife answered “what else is there?”
The look on her face was don’t take the last hope we have.
I don’t make fun of anyone’s faith ( to their face – ha ) but I’m beginning to see that maybe the “faith” they feel is the group of people at their church.
Stanley sounds fairly typical, but what I find giggle-worthy is that pre-internet, xtians were largely unhampered in their bid to rub their beliefs in everyone’s face, whether ‘everyone’ wanted it or not.
Enter the internet, and ‘everyone’ suddenly had the ability to shove it right back at them in unison – and used it.
But, xtians don’t like the boot being on the other foot, so they scream bloody murder and whine about ‘hurt feelings’ and ‘unfairness’ and ‘bullies’ and ‘jerks’.
It’s all a bit comical, really, in an infantile kind of way.
“…a Church that provides me with compassion and friendship without asking for anything in return…”
I will look forward to a column by the gentleman about the particular “compassion and friendship” extended by certain Catholic priests to certain children.
I’m guessing Dr. Stanley would defend this statement, also: “When you insult my racism you go right to the heart of what makes me me”?
The distinction between what we can change and what we can’t is illusory. Your beliefs, like every other aspect of you, are entirely a function of your genes and environment (ie, we lack contra-causal free will). If a theist’s beliefs change as a result of your ridicule, you will have changed his beliefs, not him. If you could as easily ridicule him to a healthier weight, why shouldn’t you?
I’ve had a few people say something like this to me. My response startled them.
I said “Stop that! It’s not good for you. If you’ve made a mistake about God and transcendence it’s not the end of the world. Stop confusing who you are with whether you’re right or not.”
Really. It’s not good for them; it diminishes the value of everything. It makes them desperate and thus dishonest. I’m sympathetic, sure — but they shouldn’t be encouraged to think like this. Changing your mind and becoming an atheist is not a fate worse than death.
Their thinking like this isn’t particularly good for us either, is it?
That’s such a simply obvious perspective to take on the matter that I’m ashamed to admit that it never occurred to me before I read your post.
Thanks for the head-upside-whack!
b&
You’ve just described my reaction to almost everything Sastra posts!
Jerry asks, “So why are politics fair game and religion not?”
Because people can generally defend their political beliefs, whereas belief in an invisible magician in the sky is indefensible. So they’d rather not go there.
Reblogged this on The Syed Atheist and commented:
Response to Tim Stanley’s cry ass column in Telegraph: No,atheists are not going anywhere.
Most of us would not attack religion if it kept itself and its opinions to itself.
But it wants to interfere in Politics, education and personal life, especially in the bedroom.
Religion can NEVER be good, whilst it uses its ‘Holy’ books, containing as they do poor history, poor biology and worse, poor morals. All Religion has caused division of peoples; mass murder; in group – out group hatred; snobbery and slavery. Christianity can’t even agree on what to believe, as evidenced by the writer changing his denomination, how many times? Thousands of denominations just within just Christianity should tell us all we need to know. IT IS MAN MADE, to control the minions.
So Religion, sort your house out, then we will leave you alone.
Would that the RCC would cease from proclaiming divine guidance on moral matters.
Regarding the new pope: To say that homosexual activity is a sin is not in keeping with reason and humility and human dignity. It is in keeping with arrogance and prejudice.
Let the RCC confess that its faith is based entirely on horror and despair and need of hope and redemptive meaning in the face of life’s unsufferable suffering.
Let the RCC admit that its faith is not based on divine revelation and reason contemplating the evidence of the world as they proclaim.
Let the RCC show appropriate reason and humility – considering the wretched grounds of its faith – when addressing the nature of human dignity.
Then critics could leave well alone.
If it makes him feel any better, I think he retains his silly beliefs more for reasons of intellectual cowardice.
“…they can make fun of things that you can’t change or are irrelevant to your innate human dignity, like your ethnicity, weight, or appearance. Or they can make fun of ideas that you can change, and, while not affecting your inherent value as a human being, can nevertheless be harmful and wrong.”
Surely weight and appearance are things which can, to some extent, be changed. We can choose to be clean and tidy or unwashed and unkempt. Most can choose between engaging in moderate activity and eating sensibly or sitting down all day and gorging themselves silly. As the piece criticises intellectual laziness I see no reason why physical laziness – which does indeed affect inherent value as a human being – should avoid censure.
Ideas, on the other hand, may be a lot harder to change than is recognised here. Arthur C. Clarke once said that religion was the most pernicious of mind viruses. How else can we explain the large number (albeit a minority) of scientists who are religious? Perhaps those of us who have been able to shake off the virus should be thankful rather than smug.
By no means am I disagreeing with the bulk of the arguments made here, and the Richard Dawkins quotes hit the nail squarely on the head. However, it seems to me that grounds redolent of political correctness are being used to rule some flaws out of bounds as far as criticism is concerned, while some very fancy and somewhat dubious footwork is required to ensure those same grounds do not prevent atheists from having their fun.
Perhaps we already are.
What’s more hurtful:
Having it pointed out to you that your ideas are childish and silly?
Or being told that you are a “sinner” and will burn in the fires of hell for an eternity?
You mean hurtful to believers? I think atheists would just laugh at the second one. Maybe puzzle at the first. Neither should hurtful to adult thinking people, IMO.
Speaking as an Atheist who was raised by iron fisted Seventh-day Adventists, and who -was- a Seventh-day Adventist for around 30 years, until I reached the age of reason…
Here’s the thing. Religious people are brainwashed from childhood to take it personally and make it personal. They have very poor social habits and know nothing of how to replace them with better ones. They don’t even know that their social habits -are- that bad. I also have Aspergers, and people complain plenty about me… But yeah, they don’t know the half of it.
What’s happening here is nothing different. Religions teach these people that “God” is “their God” and that they are “His.” Somehow they don’t equate this with property, ownership, or slavery, not emotionally anyway. So, they get all emotional about it when anyone attacks “their God.” They think it’s all about them. Now, much of what Dr. Stanley described is a sincere “experience” regarding his faith and what it does for him personally. However, I believe it is a delusion – but one that can’t be fixed. He likely has some sort of psychiatric disorder that can’t be fixed, even with pills. Chances are, he was severely abused in childhood by parents who gave him the wrong genes. That’s often how it goes, especially since so many religions are “all in the family” and the gene pool is rather — shallow, comparatively.
Anyway, I agree that attacking a -person- for having their beliefs is bullying. But so is attacking a -person- for not sharing in one’s own religious beliefs! This is what too many religious people don’t get. There is nothing wrong with debating or attacking a belief itself, but when someone says, “You’re an idiot because you believe such and such” — that’s an outright personal attack. BOTH sides need to stop that.
It’s like Star Wars vs. Star Trek. How did we finally learn to get along? We started appreciating what each other brings to the table, and we STOPPED the personal attacks (and stopped taking non-personal attacks personally).
I hope we can learn something from that. Let’s make Pappa Roddenberry and Pappa Lucas proud.
Reblogged this on ragequittheworld and commented:
I just wanted to share this take on Tim Stanley’s gratuitous whining about “online atheism”, I thought this person did a better job than me.
I am Roman catholic and have very much enjoyed this thread. I agree with a lot that has been said. But I disagree with your comment about atheists being a bad word. Many of my friends and colleagues are atheist. I think tolerant people tolerate and intolerant people don’t. It is not an issue of religion, but tolerance.