Tuesday, January 01, 2008
'The Four Horsemen', a discussion with Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. Admittedly there are two good reasons not to watch this, and I say this only because I don't know what Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris are like, but I'll watch it anyway.
Labels: atheism, atheists, Christopher Hitchens, Fundamentalists- Secular, Richard Dawkins
Monday, May 07, 2007
This am your news
Let's ease in to this gently by going with The Sun, always trying to position itself as The Onion for urban Conservatives: Paris Hilton scared of prison lesbians. Elsewhere, Pete Doherty has apparently been caught with drugs again but no doubt the trial judge will find some way to see this as proof that he's trying to stop taking drugs and he'll get off scott free.
In real news The Times reports Cameron's Conservatives finally ready to start explaining what they stand for, which is handy just after a national round of local elections which were seen as a referendum on the Labour Government. Seeing as the Murdoch stable seem happy to big up Blair while giving Brown any number of paper cuts it seems the first principle of Cameron Conservatism is to get News International onside, hence the fact that The Times seems to have been told what will be said tomorrow. There's still some scepticism apparent, as we wait to see whether Tories are desperate enough for power again yet that they are willing to go with Dave.
The Guardian has an article on New Atheists, they loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it, apparently. Google currently gives 'about 44,000' results for a search. The claim that Richard Dawkins goes too far in attacking religion is not a new one, nor is it particularly inaccurate. The problem is that by trying to grab a bunch of authors who have nothing in common other than having written books attacking the religiosity most commonly typified by the Conservatives of the United States and the Conservatives of a number of Muslim countries < pause for breath > and calling them The New Atheists makes it seem as though they sit together in their secret volcano base plotting each day how to defeat religion.
"What are we going to do tonight Richard?"
"The same thing we do every night Dennett, try to vanquish the religions of the world!"
Also, by ignoring completely what may have caused this small spate of anti-religious books (and their apparent popularity) Madeleine Bunting gives the unfortunate impression that religion of various denominations had been pootling along for the last decade minding it's own business and hurting no-one.
I've never really understood religious anti-Darwinism and anti-evolutionism, I'll admit I haven't read On the Origin of Species but I have read the Bible and, while it's true to say that it doesn't say that God creates evolution it says nothing to deny the possibility and would also suggest that God is a non-omnipotent being, with limits, who needs six days to make a planet and who needs a day to rest up. I haven't got a copy to hand so I'm not sure if it explicitly states that God creates the passing of time or the ability to reproduce through the interaction of people's naughty bits. Anyway, this is just a long preamble to a link to an article in the NYT in which Conservatives are battling the ultra-religious elements in their own ideology over Darwinism. I've always assumed that the urge to oppose Darwinism was no more than the desire to oppose what the Religious Right assumed the scientists stood for, birth-control, abortion, separation of church and state and so on. Can the Conservatives take the Republicans back from the Christians? Could they still have power if they aren't following an unreconstructed two-thousand year old ideology?
In real news The Times reports Cameron's Conservatives finally ready to start explaining what they stand for, which is handy just after a national round of local elections which were seen as a referendum on the Labour Government. Seeing as the Murdoch stable seem happy to big up Blair while giving Brown any number of paper cuts it seems the first principle of Cameron Conservatism is to get News International onside, hence the fact that The Times seems to have been told what will be said tomorrow. There's still some scepticism apparent, as we wait to see whether Tories are desperate enough for power again yet that they are willing to go with Dave.
The Guardian has an article on New Atheists, they loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it, apparently. Google currently gives 'about 44,000' results for a search. The claim that Richard Dawkins goes too far in attacking religion is not a new one, nor is it particularly inaccurate. The problem is that by trying to grab a bunch of authors who have nothing in common other than having written books attacking the religiosity most commonly typified by the Conservatives of the United States and the Conservatives of a number of Muslim countries < pause for breath > and calling them The New Atheists makes it seem as though they sit together in their secret volcano base plotting each day how to defeat religion.
"What are we going to do tonight Richard?"
"The same thing we do every night Dennett, try to vanquish the religions of the world!"
Also, by ignoring completely what may have caused this small spate of anti-religious books (and their apparent popularity) Madeleine Bunting gives the unfortunate impression that religion of various denominations had been pootling along for the last decade minding it's own business and hurting no-one.
I've never really understood religious anti-Darwinism and anti-evolutionism, I'll admit I haven't read On the Origin of Species but I have read the Bible and, while it's true to say that it doesn't say that God creates evolution it says nothing to deny the possibility and would also suggest that God is a non-omnipotent being, with limits, who needs six days to make a planet and who needs a day to rest up. I haven't got a copy to hand so I'm not sure if it explicitly states that God creates the passing of time or the ability to reproduce through the interaction of people's naughty bits. Anyway, this is just a long preamble to a link to an article in the NYT in which Conservatives are battling the ultra-religious elements in their own ideology over Darwinism. I've always assumed that the urge to oppose Darwinism was no more than the desire to oppose what the Religious Right assumed the scientists stood for, birth-control, abortion, separation of church and state and so on. Can the Conservatives take the Republicans back from the Christians? Could they still have power if they aren't following an unreconstructed two-thousand year old ideology?
Labels: atheism, atheists, Conservatives, David Cameron, Evolution, Fundamentalists- Secular, Islam, newspapers, politics, religion, Republicans, Richard Dawkins, science, United Kingdom, United States
Saturday, January 06, 2007
An impressively intellectually incoherent article, even by the Guardian's sometimes lax standards: Secular fundamentalists are the new totalitarians. Yes, apparently it's those evil atheists that are causing all the problems in this country.
If you read the article you will notice that the only name the writer Tobias Jones can bring to mind is Richard Dawkins, despite the fact that only a few weeks ago he organised a conference of scientists against religion or is affiliated with The Brights, an unpleasant but thankfully small group of secular elitist atheists. When most of the rest of the article is taken up with Jones bravely exposing how countless and nameless atheists have encouraged multiculturism in this country in order to stop people like that woman from British Airways from telling customers that Jesus Christ had died to save them you can see that this is just another 'we poor, persecuted Christians' article, that the target isn't actually atheists but anyone who isn't a Christian.
In recent years the nastier side of this totalitarianism has become blatantly apparent. It emerged with the hijab issue in France. With the hijab ban in French schools, a state was banishing religion not only from its corridors, but also from its citizens.
Hasn't that been true of France since it became a Republic?
Since 2001, lazy intellectuals have been allowed to get away with repeating the nonsense that terrorism and war are the consequences of belief in God. Believers are ridiculed for being, in contrast to the stupendously brainy atheists, very dim.
Of course, one might also say 'Since 2001, in the United States, non-Christians of all stripes have been accused at various times of everything up to and including treason and can even, on achieving political office, have their loyalty to their country questioned. Non-believers are ridiculed for being, in contrast to the devout believers, unwilling to accept things which they have no proof for.'
There's also the fact that we live in a cultural milieu dominated by postmodernism. Broadly speaking, it attempts to deconstruct power and its narratives. It tries to rescue the marginalised. A noble intent, but because it doesn't believe in truth, anything goes. The tyranny of orthodoxy has been replaced by the tyranny of relativism. You're supposed to believe in nothing, and hence nihilists and atheists are suddenly rather chic.
Don't let the syllogistic fallacy hit you in the arse on the way out.
Postmodernism has taken tolerance to the extremes, where extremists thrive. It's a dangerous form of appeasement.
You'll notice that this 'appeasement' only allows non-Christians to thrive. Not Christians, because they're the victims here.
If you read the article you will notice that the only name the writer Tobias Jones can bring to mind is Richard Dawkins, despite the fact that only a few weeks ago he organised a conference of scientists against religion or is affiliated with The Brights, an unpleasant but thankfully small group of secular elitist atheists. When most of the rest of the article is taken up with Jones bravely exposing how countless and nameless atheists have encouraged multiculturism in this country in order to stop people like that woman from British Airways from telling customers that Jesus Christ had died to save them you can see that this is just another 'we poor, persecuted Christians' article, that the target isn't actually atheists but anyone who isn't a Christian.
In recent years the nastier side of this totalitarianism has become blatantly apparent. It emerged with the hijab issue in France. With the hijab ban in French schools, a state was banishing religion not only from its corridors, but also from its citizens.
Hasn't that been true of France since it became a Republic?
Since 2001, lazy intellectuals have been allowed to get away with repeating the nonsense that terrorism and war are the consequences of belief in God. Believers are ridiculed for being, in contrast to the stupendously brainy atheists, very dim.
Of course, one might also say 'Since 2001, in the United States, non-Christians of all stripes have been accused at various times of everything up to and including treason and can even, on achieving political office, have their loyalty to their country questioned. Non-believers are ridiculed for being, in contrast to the devout believers, unwilling to accept things which they have no proof for.'
There's also the fact that we live in a cultural milieu dominated by postmodernism. Broadly speaking, it attempts to deconstruct power and its narratives. It tries to rescue the marginalised. A noble intent, but because it doesn't believe in truth, anything goes. The tyranny of orthodoxy has been replaced by the tyranny of relativism. You're supposed to believe in nothing, and hence nihilists and atheists are suddenly rather chic.
Don't let the syllogistic fallacy hit you in the arse on the way out.
Postmodernism has taken tolerance to the extremes, where extremists thrive. It's a dangerous form of appeasement.
You'll notice that this 'appeasement' only allows non-Christians to thrive. Not Christians, because they're the victims here.
Labels: atheists, Christianity, Fundamentalists- Christian, Fundamentalists- Secular, Richard Dawkins
