I went on the radio. I have never been on the radio before, and I had a lot of fun doing it - though, as most people listening will attest, I was a little nervous. But that is not what is important. Apart from a little bit of flustery umming and ahhing, I think the whole thing went quite well. I'll try to reconstruct what I remember of it to give you all an idea of what was talked about.
1 - Welcome Mitch, tell us about Atheism.
It's quite a bit of pressure representing a group of people who are so utterly unrepresentable by a single point of view. This is why, when the lovely Carol Duncan asked me for a quick summary of what it is I believe and why, I went overboard in stressing that it was my personal take on the issue. Right off the bat we dealt with the poor reputation that atheism has - something that we, as atheists, are going to have to get used to - and how it is should not be taken as a blanket representation of the entire movement. I suspect that many atheists listening, if they were of the hardcore variety, may have been disappointed at how little I fought back against this stereotypical perception. But the object of this discussion wasn't to argue or get petty about definitions - it was to have an honest chat and show everyone that a hardline atheist could actually be a nice and approachable kind of person.
2 - How atheism and faith overlap
Though it wasn't specifically referred to like this, the Dean and I had an interesting back and forth about the strength of conviction amongst people. I haven't mentioned the Dean much up until this point so I shall remedy this now - he is a very stoic individual, was much more composed than I on the microphone, though he was far more reserved than I expected. This might have been because he was expecting an atheist of the kind I was specifically trying to demonstrate I was not. I do not blame him if he was wary. Though it's entirely possible he is just a reserved man that chooses his words carefully. Anyway, I digress - the Dean mentioned that many people who consider themselves unbelievers may not have thought too carefully about their belief systems and therefore come under a more agnostic kind of umbrella. I didn't get a chance to hear what he thought of my return point that many, many more people who live under the umbrella of their parent's religions and have thought exactly as little about their religion might be put in the same category. My point being that, for a lot of people, faith versus unbelief is not going to be a day-to-day consideration. We didn't get too much of a chance to talk about this, but I thought it was at least one of the rare times I got the point I was trying to make across quite clearly. With a minimum of stuttering.
3 - Upbringing, Scripture and Respect
The Dean, at one point, mentioned the Steve Fielding is an Earthworm quote by Dawkins at the atheist conference. I didn't bite. I was tempted to defend the professor by pointing out that he was never heard saying those words and that, really, were they that offensive, but I didn't. I wasn't there to fight, and by the time the conversation naturally moved back to me the topic was somewhere else. If I had butted in, I'd have been being petty. I let it slide.
However, this particular mission statement of mine - make friends, be my normal lovely self - may have let me down at one point in particular. My early childhood upbringing was rasied (in an entirely not-hostile way) and it came out that my parents had never put me through scripture. A decision on their part that I was quite sure was not specifically an atheistic one, rather a decision to keep me separate from indoctrination. That is not to say that scripture is an indoctrinating force (it may very well be), but that my parents didn't want to take the risk. I mentioned that I will always thank them for doing that as it allowed me to make my own decision later in life as to what I believed on these terms. I would have been horrified to look back, for example, and see that I had been pegged as an atheist child just as much as if I had been labelled a christian or muslim or jewish or wiccan child. A child is none of these things, ideally. And guess what? I was the ideal.
The host then mentioned that she was sending her own children through scripture so that they will learn respect. Now, at the time I must admit, I assumed that Carol was talking about respect for other religions (particularly after she mentioned comparative religion studies). I wholeheartedly agreed with her shortly thereafter about the merits of religious studies, especially comparative religion, and mentioned that it was perfectly fine to teach children all about religions of the world, perhaps without the particular point of view that any one of them is the right one. It only struck me later when talking to people who had been listening to the interview that she may have meant respect in general, in which case I think a bit of argument and contrary talk would have been merited. I fervently disagree that studying or belonging to a religion is what fosters respect in young children - it is a value taught by parents and developed in socialisation with others. God has no part of it.
My consolation as I look back over the interview is that, if this was the intended point (especially when I recall that I was asked 'in hindsight, do you wish you were put through scripture?'), I vindicated myself by carrying out the discussion with nothing but the utmost respect for all the religious and secular parties to the discussion and listeners in the audience. Plenty of opportunities for cheap points presented themselves but I let them sail by without a word - I was not there to argue. I was not there to be controversial or contentious. I was there to try and let everyone see what an atheist really sounds like - and it is remarkably close to what a everyone else sounds like.
Wrapup
I don't mean to make it sound like this was a down point of the interview - there were no down points. I honestly had a great time in the studio and would do it again in a heartbeat, especially now that I know I don't sound like a fool behind the microphone and that the concept of being on radio isn't as scary as I had it built up to be in my head. It was a fantastic experience and, if you're reading this as a result of hearing it, thanks for following up on it.
Stay Tuned...
...over the easter weekend. I'm keeping abreast of all of the media coverage of the new atheism movement as reflected on by priests around the country. So far, there have been some really awful things said about us for no apparent reason other than it's fashionable to mention how religious atheists are.
It's remarkable to paw over the media coverage of atheism and try to find the balance. I can find, just so far, three anti-atheism articles written in the last three days and exactly zero anti-religion articles written since the GAC, unless you count a review of Catherine Deveney's 'God is Bullshit - That's the Good News' show in the Melbourne International Comedy Festival. I don't count it, you may. It's still an imbalance of three to one.
Who knows what the count will be up to by the end of Sunday.
Showing posts with label atheism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label atheism. Show all posts
Friday, 2 April 2010
Thursday, 25 March 2010
Don't Be Ridiculous
Nothing short of a quest for meaning...
Followers of this blog - and I realise that, at the moment, these are mythical beings - will see a theme emerging over a few of the previous posts. I have been trying to find some kind of concrete definition of what constitutes ridicule of the religious and their beliefs. It all started with the Questions of Faith blog and my interest has since then been fuelled by media reports in the aftermath of the GAC. Before the convention even started, the verdict was in: Atheists are all disrespectful of religious beliefs and cannot raise themselves above ridicule and militancy. This was hinted at in post #1 of Questions of Fath, repeated many times in this country's media during the visit of one Richard Dawkins, and is an accusation levelled at atheists time and again in general conversation, political forums, lively debates and congregational meetings.
I've been looking into it for some time now and I think I have discovered the definition of ridicule when it comes to religion.
Ridicule: Any statement or phrase that indicates a difference of opinion, an assertion of disbelief or an outright disagreement with any generally accepted religious concept.
Let me explain further.
Matters of Tone, Disrespect and Avoiding the Issue...
I tried to cut this excerpt from Q&A down. I could not. Please bear with me as I ask you to read this excerpt from the transcript.
This situation is going to be familiar to a lot of atheists. The question, prior to this debate on Q&A kicking off, was put to Richard Dawkins about morality coming from the bible, about the bible containing a notion of absolute morality, and how humanity can divine these concepts in no other way. A bold assertion, certainly, that Dawkins tries to refute by demonstrating what he believes to be an extremely amoral part of the New Testament. Read it for yourself and decide if I'm misrepresenting the situation.
The reaction, as you can see, is bristly. Immediately, upon declaring the story of Jesus' crucifixion a 'horrible and depraved' notion, he is taken to task by Julie Biship in a round-about way and Tony Burke in a direct way for being incredibly disrespectful. I invite the deputy leader of the opposition and the minister to remember exactly what it is we are talking about here: the torture and murder of an innocent man, upon which the weight of all the sins of every man in the world was transferred so that human kind could go on living without the burden of responsibility for their transgressions. The story goes that he was beaten, made to carry his own cross to the top of a hill, whereupon he was hung by nails through his hands, furnished with a crown of thorns, and made to suffer horribly until the point that he died. Go back and re-read that last sentence and raise your hand at the point where you find the words 'horrible and depraved' do not apply. I don't imagine many people typing, one handed, into my comments box to tell me exactly where this occurred.
In the transcript above we have written in plan text exactly what occurred - the Professor detailed which parts of the bible he found less than admirable, asked the audience whether they believed the story to be admirable themselves, and invited them to 'keep it'. That is a disagreement. On any other topic imaginable, this would be called 'not seeing eye-to-eye'. People would amicably enough move on and concentrate on the real point - in this case, does morality come from the bible or not. In the religious debate, we do not find this to be the case. People are unwilling to move beyond their objections to the disagreement and, as a result, those doing the disagreeing are labelled disrespectful and accused of ridicule.
I put this to Margaret Coffey of Questions of Faith and her response may have seemed quite reasonable to her at the time. She claimed that what most Christians take issue with in these matters is the 'tone' in which they are addressed. While I have no problem admitting that you can find examples of strident and immature atheists in the world who want nothing more than an ecumenical game of fisticuffs with a staunch religionist, I'm going to take specific issue with this for the simple reason that 'tone' is not a consideration in any other debate, anywhere, ever. Further to that, matters of tone are not taken into consideration in the reverse - the religious are never seen to turn the accusation of disrespect back on themselves. A curious double standard emerges. An atheist that disagrees with a Christian is being strident, ridiculing beliefs and generally making a nuisance of themselves. A Christian who disagrees with an atheist is simply one of the majority and the assertion of their views a fact of everyday life in a country founded on Christian principles.
Consider this: some two streets away from my house is a Catholic school. This school has a notice board out the front of it that reads 'Catholic Education Week: Education of the whole person' (Italics are mine). If a Christian takes issue with Richard Dawkins' disagreement with their beliefs, am I not entitled to take offense at the idea that my public school education was deficient in that it only educated part of me, and not the whole? Am I allowed to take issue with the tone being employed here, and campaign to have them say 'Catholic Education Week: Of course other points of view are valid, we believe ours is quite good, and invite you to consider sending your children to us after a careful elimination of all the other options because of our specific set of values that work for us :-)"? (The smiley face is very important - this is a notice board, after all, and it is important we know that the writer was smiling at the time).
Of Course Not.
Nor do I want to.
Am I to take offense at the fact that, despite sunday morning services around the country going on peacefully and undisturbed every single week, the one weekend the atheists decided to have a conference a table of Christians set up outside to hand out pamphlets? Ask yourself: How respectful is that? You will certainly not find the reverse - no atheist has ever approached a full church on sunday morning and handed out 'There's probably no god, so stop worrying and enjoy life' stickers. But is this something worth getting riled up about?
Of course not.
Am I to take offense to the brave Christian woman who stood in the middle of the Athiest Convention and declared "I'm afraid I do believe in God, and I will be praying for all of us before bed tonight"? You would not find me approaching a church in Newcastle and shouting from the pulpit 'I think you've all got kind of the wrong idea, here'. Surely there is something to be said for the disrespect that unwanted prayer for the unfaithful incurs? Are we not to get riled up, take ourselves off in a huff, and refuse to engage in the argument over religion ever again because we don't feel we are being treated fairly?
Of course not.
OF COURSE NOT.
A Civil Tongue - For Civil Ears...
These are petty concerns. They are the attitude of the precious and the smothered and the protected, and they show a spectacular want to avoid the issue that is being talked about. Some days ago I sent a text message to Paul Bevan on 1233 ABC Newcastle which, as far as I know, was read out (I got waylaid with work and was unable to listen). It went like this:
It more or less summarises what I am trying to say here. The nature of argument is that people are going to disagree. It is a fact of life that, at some point, someone is going to clash with your own point of view. It is important to know that when this does happen that the other is not automatically being disrespectful of your point of view by virtue of the fact that they do not share it. I actually believe that most people already know and understand this but, bizarrely, we make one exception: religion.
We could all make a legitimate claim, no matter what side of the debate we are on, to being treated with insensitivity by the other side. To allow ourselves to get bogged down in this rather than pick up and carry on with what actually matters - the content of the debate - is to do ourselves and the future of our society a great disservice.
Those that demand a civil tongue be kept would be well reminded that a civil ear is the other side of that equation. 'I do not like your tone' will become less and less of an excuse as this debate between secular and religious values continues, and the sooner that it is swept aside like the lame straw man that it is the sooner we will be able to make some actual progress and find a common ground. Until then, atheists will be forced to defend themselves from sweeping accusations of disrespect and insensitivity, theists will retreat further into their cotton wool fortresses, and the status quo will remain statically quoed.
When the status quo allows things like the trampling of womens rights, the oppression of entire cultures, the deaths of thousands in meaningless wars over devastated and war-torn deserts, the suppression of homosexual rights, the institutionalised rape and torture of children (a practice that I will not refer to by its sensitive alternative, 'abuse') by their annointed spiritual leaders and the indoctrination of millions of people on pain of death, it is something that we all ought to be showing a little more urgency to try and shift.
Followers of this blog - and I realise that, at the moment, these are mythical beings - will see a theme emerging over a few of the previous posts. I have been trying to find some kind of concrete definition of what constitutes ridicule of the religious and their beliefs. It all started with the Questions of Faith blog and my interest has since then been fuelled by media reports in the aftermath of the GAC. Before the convention even started, the verdict was in: Atheists are all disrespectful of religious beliefs and cannot raise themselves above ridicule and militancy. This was hinted at in post #1 of Questions of Fath, repeated many times in this country's media during the visit of one Richard Dawkins, and is an accusation levelled at atheists time and again in general conversation, political forums, lively debates and congregational meetings.
I've been looking into it for some time now and I think I have discovered the definition of ridicule when it comes to religion.
Ridicule: Any statement or phrase that indicates a difference of opinion, an assertion of disbelief or an outright disagreement with any generally accepted religious concept.
Let me explain further.
Matters of Tone, Disrespect and Avoiding the Issue...
I tried to cut this excerpt from Q&A down. I could not. Please bear with me as I ask you to read this excerpt from the transcript.
RICHARD DAWKINS: The New Testament - you believe, if you believe in the New Testament, that God, the all powerful creator of the universe couldn't think of a better way to forgive humanity's sins than to have himself put on earth, tortured and executed in atonement for the sins of humanity? What kind of a horrible, depraved notion is that?
JULIE BISHOP: You know, can I just say one thing?
TONY JONES: Yes.
JULIE BISHOP: You know what disturbs me about this debate and that is that people should respect other people's views. Now, the neo-creationists say that there's no scientific theory or fact and they deny it and the neo-Darwinists deny that there's faith or religion. Let's show some respect for different people's views and then I think the debate will be perhaps much more pleasant.
RICHARD DAWKINS: What is wrong - when you say - you're implying I didn't show respect.
JULIE BISHOP: No, I'm saying that what disturbs me about this debate and we see it often is that there are extremes. And whenever I see extremes I'm concerned.
RICHARD DAWKINS: But the extreme is in the New Testament. I simply told you what is New Testament doctrine. That is St Paul's view, which is accepted by Christianity. That's why Christ came to earth, in order to atone for humanity's sins. If it's extreme, it's not me that's being extreme, it's the new testament that's being extreme.
TONY JONES: No, well, I'm going to jump in here, because is that not a story of sacrifice and therefore has something admirable attached to it which is the opposite of what you suggested?
RICHARD DAWKINS: Do you think it's admirable? You think it's admirable that God actually had himself tortured for the sins of humanity?
TONY JONES: That is the Christian view obviously.
RICHARD DAWKINS: That is the Christian view. If you think that's admirable, you can keep it.
TONY JONES: Okay. Tony Burke, first of all, quickly?
TONY BURKE: I don't think your ridicule of people's faith is much better than what you're criticising. I really don't.
RICHARD DAWKINS: But I just stated it. I didn't ridicule it. I simply stated it.
TONY BURKE: No. No. No. No. Sorry, if you go back over the words you used, once you're stating it you did then ridicule it. You did. And if you want to look at the challenges and the conflicts and making a community around the world work together, then the level of respect that so many religions have not shown for each other absolutely needs to be lifted and your level of respect and tolerance could probably be a bit better too.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Let me answer that. Let me answer that. I did not more than state the Christian doctrine and Tony then said, "That is the Christian doctrine. Isn't it admirable." People said, "Yes, it's admirable." So how is it disrespectful if I simply state what it is and half the audience think it's admirable? What's disrespectful about stating it?
TONY BURKE: Press rewind, hear your own words. You have changed them.
TONY JONES: Okay.
RICHARD DAWKINS: I have not.
This situation is going to be familiar to a lot of atheists. The question, prior to this debate on Q&A kicking off, was put to Richard Dawkins about morality coming from the bible, about the bible containing a notion of absolute morality, and how humanity can divine these concepts in no other way. A bold assertion, certainly, that Dawkins tries to refute by demonstrating what he believes to be an extremely amoral part of the New Testament. Read it for yourself and decide if I'm misrepresenting the situation.
The reaction, as you can see, is bristly. Immediately, upon declaring the story of Jesus' crucifixion a 'horrible and depraved' notion, he is taken to task by Julie Biship in a round-about way and Tony Burke in a direct way for being incredibly disrespectful. I invite the deputy leader of the opposition and the minister to remember exactly what it is we are talking about here: the torture and murder of an innocent man, upon which the weight of all the sins of every man in the world was transferred so that human kind could go on living without the burden of responsibility for their transgressions. The story goes that he was beaten, made to carry his own cross to the top of a hill, whereupon he was hung by nails through his hands, furnished with a crown of thorns, and made to suffer horribly until the point that he died. Go back and re-read that last sentence and raise your hand at the point where you find the words 'horrible and depraved' do not apply. I don't imagine many people typing, one handed, into my comments box to tell me exactly where this occurred.
In the transcript above we have written in plan text exactly what occurred - the Professor detailed which parts of the bible he found less than admirable, asked the audience whether they believed the story to be admirable themselves, and invited them to 'keep it'. That is a disagreement. On any other topic imaginable, this would be called 'not seeing eye-to-eye'. People would amicably enough move on and concentrate on the real point - in this case, does morality come from the bible or not. In the religious debate, we do not find this to be the case. People are unwilling to move beyond their objections to the disagreement and, as a result, those doing the disagreeing are labelled disrespectful and accused of ridicule.
I put this to Margaret Coffey of Questions of Faith and her response may have seemed quite reasonable to her at the time. She claimed that what most Christians take issue with in these matters is the 'tone' in which they are addressed. While I have no problem admitting that you can find examples of strident and immature atheists in the world who want nothing more than an ecumenical game of fisticuffs with a staunch religionist, I'm going to take specific issue with this for the simple reason that 'tone' is not a consideration in any other debate, anywhere, ever. Further to that, matters of tone are not taken into consideration in the reverse - the religious are never seen to turn the accusation of disrespect back on themselves. A curious double standard emerges. An atheist that disagrees with a Christian is being strident, ridiculing beliefs and generally making a nuisance of themselves. A Christian who disagrees with an atheist is simply one of the majority and the assertion of their views a fact of everyday life in a country founded on Christian principles.
Consider this: some two streets away from my house is a Catholic school. This school has a notice board out the front of it that reads 'Catholic Education Week: Education of the whole person' (Italics are mine). If a Christian takes issue with Richard Dawkins' disagreement with their beliefs, am I not entitled to take offense at the idea that my public school education was deficient in that it only educated part of me, and not the whole? Am I allowed to take issue with the tone being employed here, and campaign to have them say 'Catholic Education Week: Of course other points of view are valid, we believe ours is quite good, and invite you to consider sending your children to us after a careful elimination of all the other options because of our specific set of values that work for us :-)"? (The smiley face is very important - this is a notice board, after all, and it is important we know that the writer was smiling at the time).
Of Course Not.
Nor do I want to.
Am I to take offense at the fact that, despite sunday morning services around the country going on peacefully and undisturbed every single week, the one weekend the atheists decided to have a conference a table of Christians set up outside to hand out pamphlets? Ask yourself: How respectful is that? You will certainly not find the reverse - no atheist has ever approached a full church on sunday morning and handed out 'There's probably no god, so stop worrying and enjoy life' stickers. But is this something worth getting riled up about?
Of course not.
Am I to take offense to the brave Christian woman who stood in the middle of the Athiest Convention and declared "I'm afraid I do believe in God, and I will be praying for all of us before bed tonight"? You would not find me approaching a church in Newcastle and shouting from the pulpit 'I think you've all got kind of the wrong idea, here'. Surely there is something to be said for the disrespect that unwanted prayer for the unfaithful incurs? Are we not to get riled up, take ourselves off in a huff, and refuse to engage in the argument over religion ever again because we don't feel we are being treated fairly?
Of course not.
OF COURSE NOT.
A Civil Tongue - For Civil Ears...
These are petty concerns. They are the attitude of the precious and the smothered and the protected, and they show a spectacular want to avoid the issue that is being talked about. Some days ago I sent a text message to Paul Bevan on 1233 ABC Newcastle which, as far as I know, was read out (I got waylaid with work and was unable to listen). It went like this:
Paul, regarding the atheist lack of respect: I wonder, should we beware the theists who cry 'disrespect' and 'insensitivity' during every single debate on the topic of religion? It seems to me a very easy way to avoid engaging with the actual issues. 'I don't like your tone, therefore this debate is over'. A genuine problem arises when 'disrespect' is confused with disagreement and all debate is halted. Respect for individuals is of course a given - but it is impossible for an argument to take place unless beliefs are questioned. Consider what parliament would be like if politicians demanded respect and sensitivity for their position on the political spectrum. More time would be spent apologizing than arguing. While a cordial level of respect should OF COURSE be maintained between two parties to a lively discussion no matter the topic, it is surely silly to expect that neither will say something that other finds unpalatable. I end with the words of Christopher Hitchens: 'As long as we are having a civilised conversation, why is there a need to keep insisting that is what we are doing'? (Mitch, Newcastle - does not know the meaning of brevity).
It more or less summarises what I am trying to say here. The nature of argument is that people are going to disagree. It is a fact of life that, at some point, someone is going to clash with your own point of view. It is important to know that when this does happen that the other is not automatically being disrespectful of your point of view by virtue of the fact that they do not share it. I actually believe that most people already know and understand this but, bizarrely, we make one exception: religion.
We could all make a legitimate claim, no matter what side of the debate we are on, to being treated with insensitivity by the other side. To allow ourselves to get bogged down in this rather than pick up and carry on with what actually matters - the content of the debate - is to do ourselves and the future of our society a great disservice.
Those that demand a civil tongue be kept would be well reminded that a civil ear is the other side of that equation. 'I do not like your tone' will become less and less of an excuse as this debate between secular and religious values continues, and the sooner that it is swept aside like the lame straw man that it is the sooner we will be able to make some actual progress and find a common ground. Until then, atheists will be forced to defend themselves from sweeping accusations of disrespect and insensitivity, theists will retreat further into their cotton wool fortresses, and the status quo will remain statically quoed.
When the status quo allows things like the trampling of womens rights, the oppression of entire cultures, the deaths of thousands in meaningless wars over devastated and war-torn deserts, the suppression of homosexual rights, the institutionalised rape and torture of children (a practice that I will not refer to by its sensitive alternative, 'abuse') by their annointed spiritual leaders and the indoctrination of millions of people on pain of death, it is something that we all ought to be showing a little more urgency to try and shift.
Monday, 8 March 2010
Q&A - Prof. Dawkins must be oh so bored
Being touted as the world's most famous atheist must be tedious.
Tonight on ABC 1, Q&A counted amoung its guests Professor Richard Dawkins, Family First Leader Steve Fielding, Deputy Opposition Leader Julie Bishop, Australian of the Year 2010 Prof. Patrick McGorry, Member for Watson and Minister for Agriculture Tony Burke, and Rabbi Jacqueline Ninio of Emmanuel Synagogue. For all of the learned people on the panel - a handful of which have a say in how our country is run, might I add - the likes of whom you might expect would be familiar with answering questions and partaking of debate, I was most disappointed in the quality of debate that went on.
A few days ago I posted an entry called "God in the Suburbs" in which I lamented the severe level of ignorance being wielded like a sword and shield by any and all that saw fit to wade into the debate (whether atheist or religious). This ignorance is not purposeful on the part of those arguing, but it is a natural byproduct of believing one's self to be an expert on a topic that is far more intricate and complicated than first thought. Or indeed, ever thought.
Q&A tonight proved that our country's top minds are not immune to this ignorance. I want to go through some of the points thrown at Prof. Dawkins tonight and examine them just a little. I'm not inviting you to find these arguments ridiculous. I'm inviting you to read them in correct context and make up your own mind.
Never the 'twain shall meet.
The question "Can evolution and faith co-exist in the mind of a believer?" elicited a fairly basic starting point. The answer, of course, is obvious to anyone who is familiar with the subject: yes. The two are not mutually exclusive. One can easily believe that god or gods "jump started" the universe and stood aside while evolution took its course and led us to where we find ourselves today. This line of discussion, in turn, led to a berating of Steve Fielding for his belief that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old and that we were placed here by god almighty. A berating that, while I certainly can't disagree with, I felt ought to at least have been tempered by the fact that the man was willing to stand on faith alone and not rely on falsified evidence in favour of his position*.The upshot of it all was a generally arrived at consensus that 'Science and Religion have nothing to do with each other and do not need necessitate conflict'. This, as just about any atheist will tell you, is a gross oversimplification. A peacekeeping argument designed to move past a point.
If Religion and Science really do have nothing to do with each other, someone needs to tell the lobbyists that. Someone needs to tell those that banned all stem cell research in the United States - an action that led to the sacking of Australia's own Elizabeth Blackburn from the President's Council on Bioethics in 2004 when she spoke up in favour of the wondrous possibilities of human embryonic stem cell research (She later went on to win the Nobel Prize in Medicine). Someone, while we are at it, needs to tell the Vatican that condoms actually are effective in preventing the spread of STI's and AIDS, and that issuing edicts to the religious folk of Africa that condoms must not be used because they make trasmission more likely is doing to regional health what speeding bullets do to pane glass.
Someone again - obviously, one of the few not busy trying to accompish the first two tasks listed here - needs to suggest to the Islamic extremists, the really passionate believers, that our great scientific accomplishments - namely jumbo jets and skyscrapers - were never meant to be banged together the way a caveman might when trying to invent fire.
And yet tonight we listened to five different people - three of them politicians - try to explain to Prof. Dawkins that religion and science could be kept separate without the slightest bit of interference. One must ask - if this is true, why do we see so much opposition to scientific research? Why are people ready to believe that Mary McKillop can cure cancer so long after her own death?
This is not an argument that can be so easily dismissed. If you truly believe that science and religion are not at loggerheads, I hope this is a conclusion that you have arrived at after scrupulous study of the facts.
*Fielding did not try and refute evolution by natural selection while in the company of Prof. Dawkins, he simply stated 'you have your beliefs and I have mine' - a statement that, if not entirely nourishing, at least has the merit of being irrefutable and honest. If more people had a faith of the kind that Mr. Fielding has, the debate between theism and non would be solved much more easily as people would not rely on psuedo science and fraudulent evidence to 'strengthen' their positions. Can I also take this footnote as an opportunity to applaud him for declaring religion and science to be separate departments in a school setting, something that many hardline believers will not concede.
Respect me, you Nasty Atheist.
This one is easy. There is a myth circulating that goes something like this: "all beliefs are personal and deserve your respect. To speak against them is impolite, disrespectful and harmful. It will get you nowhere."
This sounds, I'm afraid to say, like the spiny response of someone who doesn't want to engage with the topic at all because they have either a) never had to argue it before, b) don't want to think about the implications of the argument or c) have enjoyed a lifetime of privellege in which people have lightstepped around their beliefs in the hope of avoiding all-too-easily provoked offence.
Josh Thomas posted the most eloquent refutation to this on his Twitter feed when he said "It would be a pretty boring #qanda episode when no one argued with people's views out of respect."
Beliefs need to be challenged - especially those posited with no substantiating evidence. Without this there would be no checks and balances, there would be no way to tell truth from dogma. When Prof. Dawkins offered a passage from the new testament as an example of abhorrently immoral behaviour (the story of Jesus dying on behalf of all man's sin) and loudly declared "you can keep it!", he was met with a stroppy, petulant tantrum from Tony Burke. "When you ridicule people's beliefs, it's divisive and nasty". Or something along those lines. A banal back and forth took place in which Prof. Dawkins tried to argue that he didn't ridicule the belief. It comes down to definition. If you're going to say that the fact that Dawkins disagrees with the idea that the new testament is an inspiring moral tale and is willing to say so to people that asked him about it, then I guess there's no defence. He did ridicule it. And if that is your definition of ridicule, then guess what? I'm okay with it.
Because the story he told really is morally abhorrent, it really is an example of how the bible is not a great teacher of morality, and it really does deserve to be ridiculed. One very rarely finds ridicule where the object is not first ridiculous. It would be hard, for example, to ridicule the idea of the mathematical equation 1 + 3 = 4 because it is irrefutably true. Ridiculous stories and beliefs will attract ridicule - they are not made to look ridiculous. They already look that way. Pointing this out can be defined as ridicule, yes. But it is the kind of ridicule that is unavoidable if you're going to disagree with the moral quality of the story.
For me, the interesting part is just how sensitive the religious are to this 'ridicule'. One would think that if their faith was strong enough, the point of view of a single man amoungst a panel of five would not be sufficient to hurt their feelings. Would I be accused of ridicule if I asked whether this was a sign of insecurity?
And note that I do not demand respect for holding this point of view. All I ask is my right to hold it without being called disrespectful.
Temporary Close.
Look, there is a lot to talk about. I never imagined when I started writing a blog that I would find so much to say and have such little time to do it in. It's nearly 1am again, I must go to work tomorrow, but I will be back. I still owe MasterMystery a response to Pantheism, I have about three more points of interest from Q&A to talk about, aghhh.
There just is not enough coffee in the world for this.
Tonight on ABC 1, Q&A counted amoung its guests Professor Richard Dawkins, Family First Leader Steve Fielding, Deputy Opposition Leader Julie Bishop, Australian of the Year 2010 Prof. Patrick McGorry, Member for Watson and Minister for Agriculture Tony Burke, and Rabbi Jacqueline Ninio of Emmanuel Synagogue. For all of the learned people on the panel - a handful of which have a say in how our country is run, might I add - the likes of whom you might expect would be familiar with answering questions and partaking of debate, I was most disappointed in the quality of debate that went on.
A few days ago I posted an entry called "God in the Suburbs" in which I lamented the severe level of ignorance being wielded like a sword and shield by any and all that saw fit to wade into the debate (whether atheist or religious). This ignorance is not purposeful on the part of those arguing, but it is a natural byproduct of believing one's self to be an expert on a topic that is far more intricate and complicated than first thought. Or indeed, ever thought.
Q&A tonight proved that our country's top minds are not immune to this ignorance. I want to go through some of the points thrown at Prof. Dawkins tonight and examine them just a little. I'm not inviting you to find these arguments ridiculous. I'm inviting you to read them in correct context and make up your own mind.
Never the 'twain shall meet.
The question "Can evolution and faith co-exist in the mind of a believer?" elicited a fairly basic starting point. The answer, of course, is obvious to anyone who is familiar with the subject: yes. The two are not mutually exclusive. One can easily believe that god or gods "jump started" the universe and stood aside while evolution took its course and led us to where we find ourselves today. This line of discussion, in turn, led to a berating of Steve Fielding for his belief that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old and that we were placed here by god almighty. A berating that, while I certainly can't disagree with, I felt ought to at least have been tempered by the fact that the man was willing to stand on faith alone and not rely on falsified evidence in favour of his position*.The upshot of it all was a generally arrived at consensus that 'Science and Religion have nothing to do with each other and do not need necessitate conflict'. This, as just about any atheist will tell you, is a gross oversimplification. A peacekeeping argument designed to move past a point.
If Religion and Science really do have nothing to do with each other, someone needs to tell the lobbyists that. Someone needs to tell those that banned all stem cell research in the United States - an action that led to the sacking of Australia's own Elizabeth Blackburn from the President's Council on Bioethics in 2004 when she spoke up in favour of the wondrous possibilities of human embryonic stem cell research (She later went on to win the Nobel Prize in Medicine). Someone, while we are at it, needs to tell the Vatican that condoms actually are effective in preventing the spread of STI's and AIDS, and that issuing edicts to the religious folk of Africa that condoms must not be used because they make trasmission more likely is doing to regional health what speeding bullets do to pane glass.
Someone again - obviously, one of the few not busy trying to accompish the first two tasks listed here - needs to suggest to the Islamic extremists, the really passionate believers, that our great scientific accomplishments - namely jumbo jets and skyscrapers - were never meant to be banged together the way a caveman might when trying to invent fire.
And yet tonight we listened to five different people - three of them politicians - try to explain to Prof. Dawkins that religion and science could be kept separate without the slightest bit of interference. One must ask - if this is true, why do we see so much opposition to scientific research? Why are people ready to believe that Mary McKillop can cure cancer so long after her own death?
This is not an argument that can be so easily dismissed. If you truly believe that science and religion are not at loggerheads, I hope this is a conclusion that you have arrived at after scrupulous study of the facts.
*Fielding did not try and refute evolution by natural selection while in the company of Prof. Dawkins, he simply stated 'you have your beliefs and I have mine' - a statement that, if not entirely nourishing, at least has the merit of being irrefutable and honest. If more people had a faith of the kind that Mr. Fielding has, the debate between theism and non would be solved much more easily as people would not rely on psuedo science and fraudulent evidence to 'strengthen' their positions. Can I also take this footnote as an opportunity to applaud him for declaring religion and science to be separate departments in a school setting, something that many hardline believers will not concede.
Respect me, you Nasty Atheist.
This one is easy. There is a myth circulating that goes something like this: "all beliefs are personal and deserve your respect. To speak against them is impolite, disrespectful and harmful. It will get you nowhere."
This sounds, I'm afraid to say, like the spiny response of someone who doesn't want to engage with the topic at all because they have either a) never had to argue it before, b) don't want to think about the implications of the argument or c) have enjoyed a lifetime of privellege in which people have lightstepped around their beliefs in the hope of avoiding all-too-easily provoked offence.
Josh Thomas posted the most eloquent refutation to this on his Twitter feed when he said "It would be a pretty boring #qanda episode when no one argued with people's views out of respect."
Beliefs need to be challenged - especially those posited with no substantiating evidence. Without this there would be no checks and balances, there would be no way to tell truth from dogma. When Prof. Dawkins offered a passage from the new testament as an example of abhorrently immoral behaviour (the story of Jesus dying on behalf of all man's sin) and loudly declared "you can keep it!", he was met with a stroppy, petulant tantrum from Tony Burke. "When you ridicule people's beliefs, it's divisive and nasty". Or something along those lines. A banal back and forth took place in which Prof. Dawkins tried to argue that he didn't ridicule the belief. It comes down to definition. If you're going to say that the fact that Dawkins disagrees with the idea that the new testament is an inspiring moral tale and is willing to say so to people that asked him about it, then I guess there's no defence. He did ridicule it. And if that is your definition of ridicule, then guess what? I'm okay with it.
Because the story he told really is morally abhorrent, it really is an example of how the bible is not a great teacher of morality, and it really does deserve to be ridiculed. One very rarely finds ridicule where the object is not first ridiculous. It would be hard, for example, to ridicule the idea of the mathematical equation 1 + 3 = 4 because it is irrefutably true. Ridiculous stories and beliefs will attract ridicule - they are not made to look ridiculous. They already look that way. Pointing this out can be defined as ridicule, yes. But it is the kind of ridicule that is unavoidable if you're going to disagree with the moral quality of the story.
For me, the interesting part is just how sensitive the religious are to this 'ridicule'. One would think that if their faith was strong enough, the point of view of a single man amoungst a panel of five would not be sufficient to hurt their feelings. Would I be accused of ridicule if I asked whether this was a sign of insecurity?
And note that I do not demand respect for holding this point of view. All I ask is my right to hold it without being called disrespectful.
Temporary Close.
Look, there is a lot to talk about. I never imagined when I started writing a blog that I would find so much to say and have such little time to do it in. It's nearly 1am again, I must go to work tomorrow, but I will be back. I still owe MasterMystery a response to Pantheism, I have about three more points of interest from Q&A to talk about, aghhh.
There just is not enough coffee in the world for this.
Saturday, 6 March 2010
The Rorschach Test.
Very quickly because it's 12:50am on Sunday.
I've been thinking of it like this.
The universe is basically one big Rorschach Test - a giant inkblot that people may read into any meaning they wish. Christians find god and a holy spirit, Muslims find allah (the same thing), Deists find an incredible and uncoincidental order and beauty to everything. Pick any faith and you'll find a brand new* interpretation of this giant inkblot.
It seems to me that an Atheist is the only one who sits back and says, "You know we're looking at a Rorschach Test, right?"
*By 'band new', I actually mean 'contrived from those that came nearly immediately before it'.
I've been thinking of it like this.
The universe is basically one big Rorschach Test - a giant inkblot that people may read into any meaning they wish. Christians find god and a holy spirit, Muslims find allah (the same thing), Deists find an incredible and uncoincidental order and beauty to everything. Pick any faith and you'll find a brand new* interpretation of this giant inkblot.
Pictured: The Universe
It seems to me that an Atheist is the only one who sits back and says, "You know we're looking at a Rorschach Test, right?"
*By 'band new', I actually mean 'contrived from those that came nearly immediately before it'.
Wednesday, 3 March 2010
God in the Suburbs
A discussion going on over at Ninemsn - bizarrely, in the money section - has been illuminating to say the least.
The initial blog post - about some Seventh Day Adventists or other door-knocking religious folk - interrupting a non-believer while she tried to prepare dinner for her family led to a debate about the prevalence of god in small communities. Her basic point was that religion seemed to be dying out, and that she was part of it, and that the door knockers' place in the world was beginning to dwindle. The question asked at the end of the blog post went thusly:
"Do you live in an area where religion has a strong presence? Or are your churches empty? Do you think communities need religion to thrive? Share your thoughts below."
Open ended, I think you'll agree. When you ask a question this broad on this topic, your responses are going to be equally as broad. And hoo-boy, were they broad. Across approximately 200 comments at time of posting, the gamut of religious and non-religious responses were gone through. I took part quite actively myself. Some of the responses to my posts were encouraging, others were hair-pullingly frustrating.
I encourage you to go and have a look at them. I was slightly surprised to see that the replies were disproportionately faithful. I ran this through a little filter in my head, however, that accounted for the fact that this was ninemsn and it made a little more sense.
Putting aside all atheism versus religion, though, there was one common problem with nearly every single post on the site. Religion is a topic that absolutely everyone in the world feels they are an expert on. So when a blogger makes an innocent post about being bothered at dinner by door knockers, one responder saw fit to chastise her for talking about such a trivial thing while there was so much more that could be talked about. Including, to quote, 'wars, malnutrition and diseases'. I suppose he is right. Then again, this is in the 'your suburb' section of the website. So unless there are wars, malnutrition or diseases rife in the neighbourhood, I'm willing to cut the writer a little slack. But I have digressed. The point is that nearly every comment, be it pro or anti religion, suffered from the same problem - a willingness to debate the topic, but an unwillingness to know even the slightest thing about the topic.
A list of the topics trotted out by commenters that even a cursory google search will dispel:
- Evolution is only a theory.
- Atheism is just as dogmatic and fundamentalist as any religion
- Science is arrogant and can't deal with real human issues
- Without religion there can be no morality
- Religious folk are more generous than non.
- Christianity is being picked on
- One sect/offshoot of a religion can be somehow more unfeasible than another
- Science and Religion are not in opposition
- There was a big bang and, like a whirlwind through a junkyard producing a jumbo jet, life sprang into existence by chance
- Everyone would believe in god if only they took the time to read the bible/torah/quo'ran
- Religion itself is just a metaphor/fanciful way of telling good moral lessons
- Organised religion is giving all of religion a bad name/individuals don't share the burden of the institution
And the biggest sin of all - Godwin's law came rapidly to fruition. Secular Humanism was referred to as being the basis of Hitler's final solution. At which point, as we all know, the argument was immediately lost.
These are all topics worth talking about and getting cleared up early on. They may not be as cut and dry as I make out - I am bound to be biased after all - but you've got to work past this stuff, the novice stuff, before you really start to get to the crux of the arguments. Over the next few weeks I'll come back to fill these in.
For now, if you're interested, head on over and read through some of the comments on the ninemsn blog. Or leave one here. All efforts are made to answer questions and challenges given. And let's face it - nobody knows this place exists, so it won't be a problem.
Update: The author of the blog post, Rosalind Scutt, has previously written glowing pieces about Feng Shui. I am utterly confused as to her skeptic status now. Dammit, why can't people be consistent?
The initial blog post - about some Seventh Day Adventists or other door-knocking religious folk - interrupting a non-believer while she tried to prepare dinner for her family led to a debate about the prevalence of god in small communities. Her basic point was that religion seemed to be dying out, and that she was part of it, and that the door knockers' place in the world was beginning to dwindle. The question asked at the end of the blog post went thusly:
"Do you live in an area where religion has a strong presence? Or are your churches empty? Do you think communities need religion to thrive? Share your thoughts below."
Open ended, I think you'll agree. When you ask a question this broad on this topic, your responses are going to be equally as broad. And hoo-boy, were they broad. Across approximately 200 comments at time of posting, the gamut of religious and non-religious responses were gone through. I took part quite actively myself. Some of the responses to my posts were encouraging, others were hair-pullingly frustrating.
I encourage you to go and have a look at them. I was slightly surprised to see that the replies were disproportionately faithful. I ran this through a little filter in my head, however, that accounted for the fact that this was ninemsn and it made a little more sense.
Putting aside all atheism versus religion, though, there was one common problem with nearly every single post on the site. Religion is a topic that absolutely everyone in the world feels they are an expert on. So when a blogger makes an innocent post about being bothered at dinner by door knockers, one responder saw fit to chastise her for talking about such a trivial thing while there was so much more that could be talked about. Including, to quote, 'wars, malnutrition and diseases'. I suppose he is right. Then again, this is in the 'your suburb' section of the website. So unless there are wars, malnutrition or diseases rife in the neighbourhood, I'm willing to cut the writer a little slack. But I have digressed. The point is that nearly every comment, be it pro or anti religion, suffered from the same problem - a willingness to debate the topic, but an unwillingness to know even the slightest thing about the topic.
A list of the topics trotted out by commenters that even a cursory google search will dispel:
- Evolution is only a theory.
- Atheism is just as dogmatic and fundamentalist as any religion
- Science is arrogant and can't deal with real human issues
- Without religion there can be no morality
- Religious folk are more generous than non.
- Christianity is being picked on
- One sect/offshoot of a religion can be somehow more unfeasible than another
- Science and Religion are not in opposition
- There was a big bang and, like a whirlwind through a junkyard producing a jumbo jet, life sprang into existence by chance
- Everyone would believe in god if only they took the time to read the bible/torah/quo'ran
- Religion itself is just a metaphor/fanciful way of telling good moral lessons
- Organised religion is giving all of religion a bad name/individuals don't share the burden of the institution
And the biggest sin of all - Godwin's law came rapidly to fruition. Secular Humanism was referred to as being the basis of Hitler's final solution. At which point, as we all know, the argument was immediately lost.
These are all topics worth talking about and getting cleared up early on. They may not be as cut and dry as I make out - I am bound to be biased after all - but you've got to work past this stuff, the novice stuff, before you really start to get to the crux of the arguments. Over the next few weeks I'll come back to fill these in.
For now, if you're interested, head on over and read through some of the comments on the ninemsn blog. Or leave one here. All efforts are made to answer questions and challenges given. And let's face it - nobody knows this place exists, so it won't be a problem.
Update: The author of the blog post, Rosalind Scutt, has previously written glowing pieces about Feng Shui. I am utterly confused as to her skeptic status now. Dammit, why can't people be consistent?
A waste of good champagne.
Welcome, one and all, to the inaugural post. With these words, I christen this blog "The Big A Word".
There's nowhere better than the very first post to get to the guts of what this blog will focus on. It's a small blog, a local kind of thing, but there ought to be something here that just about anyone can relate to. I'm based in Newcastle, NSW so a lot of what's said will likely relate to the local area. One thing that won't be in short supply, of course, is opinion. This is the internet after all.
So, what's the Big A Word, then?
Atheism.
Or atheist, if you're using it in a titular way.
It's a big topic, there's a lot of information on the internet about it already, and this place will be just another repository for comment, articles and argument. This being the introductory post, there'll be nothing to differentiate it from your average blog about religion. But shortly, when actual content goes up, we'll hopefully see something interesting emerge. Stay tuned.
There's nowhere better than the very first post to get to the guts of what this blog will focus on. It's a small blog, a local kind of thing, but there ought to be something here that just about anyone can relate to. I'm based in Newcastle, NSW so a lot of what's said will likely relate to the local area. One thing that won't be in short supply, of course, is opinion. This is the internet after all.
So, what's the Big A Word, then?
Atheism.
Or atheist, if you're using it in a titular way.
It's a big topic, there's a lot of information on the internet about it already, and this place will be just another repository for comment, articles and argument. This being the introductory post, there'll be nothing to differentiate it from your average blog about religion. But shortly, when actual content goes up, we'll hopefully see something interesting emerge. Stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)