Blah Blah Flowers

Richard Dawkins to write book to prove that atheists can miss the point almost as badly as the religiousi.

The prominent atheist is stepping down from his post at Oxford University to write a book aimed at youngsters in which he will warn them against believing in "anti-scientific" fairytales.

Prof Hawkins (SIC) said: "The book I write next year will be a children's book on how to think about the world, science thinking contrasted with mythical thinking.

"I haven't read Harry Potter, I have read Pullman who is the other leading children's author that one might mention and I love his books. I don't know what to think about magic and fairy tales."

Prof Dawkins said he wanted to look at the effects of "bringing children up to believe in spells and wizards".

"I think it is anti-scientific – whether that has a pernicious effect, I don't know," he added.

I said 'almost' because at least he's not suggesting we ban the books or burn them, but otherwise this is the same objection that the Fundies make, albeit they have their wiggle room in that when one of their side does magic it's called a miracle and so therefore it's okay. But how come the His Dark Materials series, with their magic, dimension crossing, harrowing of hell and absolving god of responsibility for the shitness of creation gets a pass? Don't misunderstand me, it's a great series but is Dawkins suggesting that it's miracles are okay because it's been embraced as an Atheistic text? I've had no luck trying to find the press statement this report is created from on Dawkins website so the Telegraph's use of a Harry Potter photo seems to be irrelevant as Dawkins says he hasn't read them.

Labels: atheism, Philip Pullman, Richard Dawkins

'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

Harsh but fair, The Guardian Digested Read on John Humphrys' In God We Doubt: Confessions of a Failed Atheist .

I did find this book rather disappointing when I put it down. I suppose I was hoping for the Agnostic The God Delusion but instead I got one-third 'If there's a God then why do bad things happen?', one-third 'If there isn't a God then how did the universe start then huh?' and one-third 'We've got a letter from a Mrs Thoughtful of Middle-Englandshire'. Perhaps all that this book demonstrates is that rational sensible argument is unlikely to change the phase-state of a person's belief, that can only occur when they think for themselves. Humphrys largely skirts religion to concentrate on belief, which allows him to put his impartial boot into the Dawkins and Hitchens of the world but the problem is there's no sense of a journey, after a vaguely religious upbringing he lost his faith as a young man and is now an old man and it hasn't come back. In the end he makes Agnosticism seem like the Liberal Democrats of theology, able to stand on the sidelines and take pot shots at the other two positions but not doing much to convert others to the cause.

Labels: Agnosticism, atheism, atheists, books, Christianity, ethics, Islam, Judaism, Richard Dawkins, Rowan Williams

I found this last week but didn't get round to linking to it until today: 'The Problem With Atheism', a transcript of a talk by Sam Harris to the Atheist Alliance conference. Sceptical before reading, he makes a strong argument, to me, in favour of atheists going back to their constituencies and, rather than identifying as atheists, just trying to act like sensible, rational human beings. Certainly it's always worth confronting disorder with reason although some might not like Harris advocating going stealth.

If you label something then, while it's easier to oppose it, like The West against Communism, it's also easier to organise (like the Gay Lib movement). So is it better for atheism if those who believe in it speak without wearing their identities on their sleeves, or is their strength in numbers? I'm dubious about whether the political behemoth of organised Christianity, primarily in places like North and South America, and Africa, can be challenged by just trying to assemble an opposing force, especially when you've got to put up with Christopher bloody Hitchens as one of your poster boys.

Labels: atheism, atheists, Christianity, religion, Richard Dawkins

What does The Guardian have against Richard Dawkins? It's not like I particularly like him but it's like, another day, another article critical of him in Comment is Free, then when you look up the keyword 'richarddawkins' you realise that all but one of the articles are critical of Dawkins. It's a bit like the Grauniad's attitude towards transsexuals.

Labels: Evolution, newspapers, Richard Dawkins, The Guardian

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?

Labels: atheism, atheists, Conservatives, David Cameron, Evolution, Fundamentalists- Secular, Islam, newspapers, politics, religion, Republicans, Richard Dawkins, science, United Kingdom, United States

Where is atheism when bad things happen?. Puh-leaze!. For such a short piece it has any number of misconceptions and just plain wrong arguments. For one thing, it's nihilism rather than atheism that argues that there is no meaning to the universe, though not strictly an atheist myself I would venture a guess that the atheist viewpoint is that life brings it's own meaning to the universe it inhabits rather than assuming that the meaning comes from outside, dumped in by what it considers an illusory God. But really, it's so off-base I hardly think it worth going through and explaining how almost every sentence is untrue.

But where is atheism when bad things happen? I suppose, in the context of the largely Christian or Christian-influenced western world, it comes down to whether one finds it more comforting to believe that there is a God up there who sits back and allows mankind to mess things up on his own, or whether one finds it more comforting to believe there is no larger power and that it's our responsibility to try and make the world a better place for everyone. I get quite angry when anyone tries to write off disaster as 'part of God's greater plan' or tells me that the dead 'are in a happier place', I can't see a point to living if there's actually a book-sanctioned Big Fella upstairs who decided to make a young man of Korean descent unable to handle rejection. That's what seems truly evil, nihilistic and life-denying to me.

Labels: atheism, atheists, Christianity, death, philosophy, religion, Richard Dawkins, United States

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.

Labels: atheists, Christianity, Fundamentalists- Christian, Fundamentalists- Secular, Richard Dawkins