The Curiously Postmodern Modern Apologists

"Back in November, a debate with a Christian in another comment thread took a curious turn:

"But I have faith in the gospel and what it promises me, just like you have faith in your readings. Your suposed facts and my suposed facts, what makes mine so wrong and your so right. Are facts from the bible so different from the facts you read from magazines, books and websites....nope. It all boils down to faith. Until you can tell me that you were there from the beginning up until now, you dont really have facts of your own do you. Neither do I, I dont proclaim to like you do. Faith boys, we all have faith, faith in what is up to you. I think I will stick with the gospel on this one."

Although this Christian believer didn't notice, what he was actually advocating was postmodernism and relativism. Just like the strawman academics whom conservatives love to hate, he was effectively proclaiming that there's no objective truth and no way to decide between competing worldviews, so we might as well choose whichever one makes us feel best.

[...]

It's mind-blowingly ironic that creationists and other Christian apologists, who've gone on so many jeremiads about our society's drifting away from God's absolute truth, are now advocating a relativist view in which the evidence is insufficient to decide any question and what you believe is simply a matter of which arbitrary premises you start out with. Perhaps we should take it as a good sign, an indicator of retreat: instead of arguing that their position is proven and others are disproven, religious apologists nowadays are seemingly reduced to claiming that we can't know that their position is false. Or perhaps it's just that they've discovered the postmodernist position can be useful: it makes it possible for even the most uneducated apologist to raise an insurmountable defense against rational counterargument."

Daylight Atheism, Jan 9, 2008

Nigeria: Yar'Adua Reaffirms Govt's Commitment to Secularism

"President Umaru Musa Yar'Adua has reaffirmed Federal government's determination to defend at all times the constitution and maintain the secularity of Nigeria so as to bequeath to the present and future generations a country where no citizen is discriminated against.
Speaking at the formal opening ceremony of the Assembly of the International Alliance of Catholic Knights at the International Conference Centre, Abuja , recently, President Yar'Adua said that the country's young democracy needs all the nurturing required to ensure its sustainability.
"In a pluralistic state such as ours, our duty is to ensure that we run a government that is a protector of all regardless of ethnic and religious affiliations. As a government, we are determined to bequeath to the present and the future generations a country where no citizen is discriminated against. We shall defend the constitution and maintain the secularity of Nigeria ""

Daily Champion (Lagos), Allafrica.com, 26 November 2007

I'll also post this reader's letter from Namibia which I wanted to post earlier:

"In this part of the world, the notion of religious conservatism is automatically associated with Islamic extremism. Other forms of religious intolerance as manifested in Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism are seldom acknowledged.

Namibia, of course is a secular country. However, this is hardly ever mentioned in public. If anything, Namibia is characterised by religious conservatism which continues to exert a tight grip on mass consciousness.

This, regrettably, is a legacy of colonialism.

[...]

Since the mid sixties the liberated women of Europe and Latin America have refused to accept the moral authority of the church which has resulted in a downturn in mass religion there. However, the end of the Cold War left a huge ideological gap that has been filled by religious extremism especially Christian extremism. This has been noteworthy in the underdeveloped regions of Sub-Saharan Africa, with Namibia perhaps in the forefront as the most Christian society on the continent.

When are we going to have some serious debate about secularism, not necessarily atheism, in Namibia?"

The Namibian, June 8, 2007

A lot of people talk about how religions are receeding in Europe but spreading throughout Africa, but it's not like Atheism is pushed back in Africa. Christianity and Islam is pushing traditional beliefs back. There's a lot to be said about this, but there's one thing I think is interesting: Atheism is just a single principle, as we know. But as a collection of arguments, it's targeted at Christianity in particular. Most of us don't know how all those traditional religions in the world work be they from Africa or anywhere else, but we know Christianity and we're starting to know Islam too.

So my opinion is that these two religions pave the way for Atheism or at least secularism, because they make people start to talk a religious language that we understand.

Is Atheism a Religion? Defining Atheism and Religion

"Many Christians seem to believe that atheism is a religion, but no one with a fair understanding of both concepts would make such a mistake. Because it’s such a common claim, though, it’s worth demonstrating the depth and breadth of the errors being made. Presented here are the characteristics which best define religions, distinguishing them from other types of belief systems, and how atheism utterly fails to even remotely match any of them.

[goes on to explain these conditions]

Belief in Supernatural Beings:

Sacred vs Profane Objects, Places, Times:

Ritual Acts Focused on Sacred Objects, Places, Times:

Moral Code With Supernatural Origins:

Characteristically Religious Feelings:

Prayer and Other Forms of Communication:

A Worldview & Organization of One’s Life Based on the Worldview:

A Social Group Bound Together by the Above:"

About Atheism, November 12. 2007

I have no respect or tolerance for Sharia

"But what has been particularly nauseating has been the British government's handling of the affair. According to the Foreign Office, they were "very disappointed" at the verdict. Really? Why didn't they simply say that the next aid bundle to Sudan, worth nearly £200m, was off the table and if anything further happened to the woman then crippling sanctions would be applied? But no, instead we got a load of mealy-mouthed rubbish about how this was a localised incident, that it didn't represent Islam and hopefully we can all hold hands and sing songs around the proverbial camp fire. But the problem is that this is representative of Islam." Ian O'Doherty, Irish Independent, December 03 2007

A hard hitting comment here and he goes on to list lots of Sharia episodes around the world.

The unfortunate teacher in Sudan has been freed, btw.
Protestors mob British embassy in Sudan as teddy row teacher is freed

I saw someone had used this teddybear below as an avatar at Richarddawkins.net and thought it was rather funny. The guy even had a very apt comment on the Pope's latest attack on Atheism( i.e. Marxism.)

Here's an improvement on democracy

"Consider some dates. Native Americans got the vote in the United States in 1924. Spanish women were given the same privilege in 1931, French women in 1944. Lords of the Realm in the United Kingdom could not vote in parliamentary elections until 1999. Although democracy began in Athens two and a half thousand years ago, it was for centuries a fragile flower and has blossomed only recently.
Democracy, we tell ourselves, is a hallmark of “the West”, the treasure that the rest of the World envies and that accounts for the pre-eminence of Europe and North America in economic progress, intellectual dominance and moral freedoms.
But it's not the case when you examine the chronology. The rise of the West had much less to do with democracy than with the rise of secularism. The West's advance was chiefly related to the decline in the influence of religion that sought the truth by “looking in” to see what God had to say, and its replacement by looking out, deriving authority from observation, experimentation and exploration."

Peter Watson, The Times, December 1, 2007

It's very true. Democracy rests on the idea that the population can rationally discuss and select the best options. But what if people aren't rational?

To Bash Or Not To Bash: The Debate Secular Humanists Do Not Need

"Some of us are bogging down in a debate over whether the promotion of secular humanism should involve "bashing" religion, or whether we should only focus on presenting humanism in a positive light. The answer is that both are necessary components of the secular humanist message, depending on the individual circumstances of each encounter, each audience, and each forum.

[...]

When we fear being accused of "religion bashing," we are buying into the trap our opponents have set for us. Republicans can criticize the political philosophy of Democrats and vice versa. Socialists and capitalists can criticize each other's basic worldview. Religionists, however, have insidiously snuck into the public consciousness the notion that religious doctrines deserve special insulation from criticism, ridicule, and doubt.

[...]

If we allow religionists to censor the words and arguments we use in our struggle to educate society in favor of secularism, we are essentially letting the fox guard the henhouse. Our society will never be receptive to a secular message so long as popular culture considers criticism of religion to be out-of-bounds."

Edward Tabash, Council for Secular Humanism

Btw, have a listen to this podcast with an interview with Tabash.

(Cheers to Skeptikeren.)

Secular Fundamentalists: There is no such thing...

"One of the methods used by the religious to marginalize atheists and our increasing visibility is to accuse us of becoming that which we originally opposed, or in other words, just like them. It's even better if they have the convenience of one experience with these so-called "secular fundamentalists" from which they can draw unfounded conclusions as to the validity of this argument and, ultimately, the character of all those who have no belief in gods, goddesses, or other mythical creatures.
This is the route taken by Michael Brendan Dougherty in the November issue of The American Conservative. His article, entitled "Secular Fundamentalists: Can atheists form a movement around shared disbelief", uses this year's Atheist Alliance International convention as fodder for his clumsy attempt to represent atheism as a new phenomenon comprised of the dogmatically anti-religious."

Kelly O'Connor, Rational Response Squad, 2007-11-15

She goes on to dissect the guy completely. It's a textbook example of antisecular propaganda and slander, and she deals with him pretty nicely! Or maybe not so nice.

The abuse of Muslim women shames us all

"Just look at some current stories. Great Western Trains reports a disproportionately high number of suicides by Asian women. Hannana Siddiqui from a women's support group, Southall Black Sisters, blames 'abusive practices within Asian families'.
Next, we read that women are receiving 'virginity repair' operations on the NHS. One doctor, who pioneered hymen reconstruction operations in the Middle East, says demand in Britain is now insatiable because 'in some cultures, they like to see that the woman will bleed on the wedding night'.

[...]

There should be no dilemma; it's not racist to defend Asian women who need help, particularly if one acknowledges the vast majority of Muslim men are, no doubt, respectful of women. The racists are those who say that where genital mutilation, hymen-repair surgery, bullying, suicide and even stoning do occur, they are none of our business - because Asian women are 'different'. They aren't; they are fellow humans, fellow Brits."

Jasper Gerard, The Observer, November 18, 2007

"As a British Muslim I find 'virginity repairs' on the NHS dangerous, demeaning ... and utterly indefensible"
Saira Khan

The New Atheism (and the left)

"If someone tells you that Islamic extremists are part of a “liberating” multitude because they are against imperialism, remind them that some folks in an earlier generation of leftists were quite able to be anti-imperialist and also to be against the Stalin-Hitler pact. They didn’t need hundreds of pages of theoretical delirium to figure it out. And remember that there were leftists whose theoretical hallucinations led them to imagine that the Second World War was little more than a reprise of conflicts among imperialists.[...]

Nonetheless, I am struck at how parts of the extreme left apologize for Islamic extremism in ways reminiscent of how an earlier generation found ways to apologize for Stalinism. The objects excused are different but the patterns of apologetics are sadly similar. It shows that there really is something I once called ‘the left that doesn’t learn.’"

Mitchell Cohen (professor of political science), Dissent Magazine, Fall 2007

An interesting article that has insights both on religion in USA as well as the Left.
It is no doubt a problem today that parts of the left do not follow up on their ideals when it comes to Islam. That is sad, because some good old idealism and activism for human rights is a lot better now than a relativistic fight for "the right to conform to your culture". I'm not sure it's the stalinist types that are currently defending Islam though. It seems to me it's the all too liberal left that does so. I hope the left can get more active, because a lot of the debate is hampered by the fact that Christians are more eager to fight for universal feminism and whatnot than the left itself.
It's going to be another black spot on leftist history unless they pull themselves together.

Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

"It is easy for religious faith, even if it is irrational in itself, to lead a sane and decent person, by rational, logical steps, to do terrible things [because of religious texts]. There is a logical path from religious faith to evil deeds. There is no logical path from atheism to evil deeds. Of course, many evil deeds are done by individuals who happen to be atheists. But it can never be rational to say that, because of my nonbelief in religion, it would be good to be cruel, to murder, to oppress women, or to perpetrate any of the evils on the Hitchens list."

Richard Dawkins, On Faith, October 2, 2007

Sam Harris The Problem with Atheism

"The problem is that the concept of atheism imposes upon us a false burden of remaining fixated on people’s beliefs about God and remaining even-handed in our treatment of religion. But we shouldn’t be fixated, and we shouldn’t be even-handed.

[...]

The second reason to be attentive to the differences among the world’s religions is that these differences are actually a matter of life and death. There are very few of us who lie awake at night worrying about the Amish. This is not an accident. While I have no doubt that the Amish are mistreating their children, by not educating them adequately, they are not likely to hijack aircraft and fly them into buildings. But consider how we, as atheists, tend to talk about Islam. Christians often complain that atheists, and the secular world generally, balance every criticism of Muslim extremism with a mention of Christian extremism. The usual approach is to say that they have their jihadists, and we have people who kill abortion doctors. Our Christian neighbors, even the craziest of them, are right to be outraged by this pretense of even-handedness, because the truth is that Islam is quite a bit scarier and more culpable for needless human misery, than Christianity has been for a very, very long time. And the world must wake up to this fact. Muslims themselves must wake up to this fact. And they can."

Sam Harris On Faith/Atheist Alliance September 28th, 2007

Let me at once say that I disagree with avoiding calling ourselves Atheists. However, he makes some good points in the article. The quote above in particular. I for one am sick and tired of hearing the stupid relativistic mantra that "There are extremists on both sides". There are a couple of billion believers in the world, and we can't take on them all, so we need to set our priorities right and if we are to be understood we can not say that some evangelical fundie is as bad as a suicide bomber. That's simply not the case. Now naturally, we must target Christianity, but we shouldn't tell Christians that they're all as bad as Muslim fundamentalists. This kind of comparison is even used about Atheists vs fundies, so I think you know how it feels. It's unfair.

Now to the qeustion of labels. How can you be a political force/lobby group unless you can show hard cash in the shape of a large (and larger) number of people who call themselves Atheists? You can't. I think we've all heard about "the powerful Jewish lobby" in USA. Well, there are only five million Jews in USA, and lots more Atheists. (And it's not like they weren't stigmatized at a time.)
Sam Harris also forgot, regarding racism, that there are actually a lot of people who refer to themselves as Anti-Racists. (Imho, some of them often do come across as a tad fanatic and at least here around think that beating up nazis is OK, but it's in part because nazis by definition are also fanatic. Well, different problem altogether.) However, the thing is: if there is something in society that you object to, then it's not meaningless to label yourself as being opposed to it.

It's when the idea that you object to has disappeared that you should ask yourself what the point is in using a term for being against it. However, Atheism is a perfectly meaningful term because there is rampant theism everywhere.

As for meditation, I think what he argues is that since lots of religious feelings are based upon argument from personal experience, then we should try this experience so that we know what we're talking about. That's a fair point, although I will meditate over my own dead body! I also don't think it's practical to spend half a day doing nothing.I always liked the term Protestant work morals, so I'd rather be a Protestant Atheist rather than some half-buddhist.

Christian Supremacy: Pushing the Dhimmitude of Non-Christians in America

"What is Christian Supremacy?:
In America, the notion of Christian Supremacy encompasses both a moral attitude and a political program. In the moral realm, Christian Supremacy is the idea that Christianity is superior to all other religions, and by extension, that Christians are superior to all non-Christians. Politically, Christian Supremacy is an agenda to get America's political institutions to reflect this superiority by favoring Christians over non-Christians and Christianity over all other beliefs.

What is Dhimmitude?:
Dhimmi is a Muslim classification for members of any tolerated religion, like Jews and Christians, living in a Muslim nation and under Muslim law. Dhimmis are allowed to exist and to practice their religion, but they are not allowed to proselytize or otherwise make trouble — thus they have fewer legal rights than Muslims. Christian Supremacists would reduce non-Christians in America to an inferior status analogous to dhimmis in Muslim lands."

atheism.about.com, 29. September 2007

What's wrong with the religious right?

"Now, less than four years after widespread declarations that the religious right had taken over the Republican Party, these social conservatives seem almost powerless to influence its nomination process.
It isn’t because they lack numbers. Pollster Tony Fabrizio has documented that moralists remain the biggest slice of GOP voters. More than a third of 2004 votes for President Bush were cast by evangelicals.
Yet organizations designed to mobilize these voters have atrophied. The Christian Coalition is a shadow of its former self. Efforts to relaunch the defunct Moral Majority haven’t fared much better. Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy are dead, Pat Robertson past his prime.

[...]

When The Washington Post once described religious conservatives as largely “poor, uneducated and easy to command,” evangelicals protested that they weren’t poor or uneducated. Now, neither are they easy to command."

Politico.com, Sep 24, 2007

Good news!

Why are we Muslims so self-destructive?

At an ifthar (breaking of fast) gathering last week, Rahim, a handsome young Muslim doctor and I chatted about this and that, and the end of our world: "Do you think refined and educated Muslims will survive this century? Or will we become extinct? I feel I don't know who I am any more. My parents, too, say the same. Barbaric Muslims are stronger than us, more stupid and ignorant, but stronger, you know."

[...]

Look today at India and Pakistan, neighbours, twin nations with identical histories and values. While the former is poised to challenge the economic and cultural power of the West, the latter is imploding and joins the ever-growing club of failed Muslim states. India has shameful problems – extreme poverty, corruption, greed, the caste system, Islamophobia and misogynist cultural practices – but, unlike Pakistan, it also has a free press and democracy, and its population understands the importance of education and enlightenment.
Come to our isles and the same stark contrast emerges. British Asians of Indian background (including Muslims from India) are top of the league tables in schools, universities, business and the professions. They are mentally agile, inquisitive, and encouraged to strive by their families. With some individual exceptions, British Muslims of Pakistani and Bangladeshi backgrounds languish at the bottom of all indicator tables. It is heartbreaking."

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, Independent, 24 September 2007

Cult Plus Time Equals Religion

For the most part, the only difference between a "real religion" and a "cult" is longevity--a distinction that also applies to governments. If enough people believe in some form of the supernatural for a long enough period of time, we stop calling it a cult and start calling it a religion. Religions are cults that last.

[...]

One of the main reasons why it is a mistake to call atheism, freethought, or secular humanism "just another religion" is that unfettered inquiry is the basis of the secular worldview. Free inquiry is the mortal enemy of all controlling religions. Of course, secular ideologies such as Stalinist Communism can become controlling religions too, since they take on the imperviousness to evidence that is the ultimate expression of religious fanaticism. But that has nothing to do with the open-minded secularism, rooted in the Enlightenment, that is the basis of freethought today. Fear and loathing of intellectual challenge is the essence of all controlling religious factions, whether the God is called Stalin, Jehovah, or Allah.

[...]

Christian societies, of course, used to kill people for blasphemy. But time--and the rise of the great separation between church and state pioneered by the United States of America--has turned most of the Christian world away from the dogmas of controlling religion. But don't call this "real" religion, as distinct from a cult. It is simply religion moderated by secular knowledge and secular government.

Susan Jacoby, On Faith, 19. September 2007

Good Cop, Bad Cop: Atheist Activism

"In addition, the street activists presented a more extreme, hard-line set of demands... which made the lobbyists and other negotiators seem more reasonable in comparison."

Greta Christina's Blog, September 19, 2007

You get the gist of it right here.

Re: Kathy Griffin - Censoring anti-religious comments could be used to restrict religion

"Suppressing secular or anti-religious commentary will set a precedent that could be used to restrict religious content. People of faith are already losing the "war on Christmas." Retailers, municipalities and even the White House opt for the politically correct term "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas."If we continue to demand the silencing of Griffin and others who don't believe as we believe, we run the risk of losing many more battles.
Under the Constitution, Griffin has as much a right to say Jesus had nothing to do with her statuette as her colleagues do to thank God for theirs."

Corey Hodges (senior pastor), Salt Lake Tribune, 09/14/2007

Update:

"Nearly 5,000 people to date have signed an online petition opposing the censoring of Kathy Griffin's remarks for the 2007 Emmy Awards. Obviously, it is too late to change the censorship, but it is still a great way to show support for Griffin. I think I'd get one of these stickers, but I'd hate to have to remove my f@$% the skull of Jesus sign to make room."

atheistrevolution.blogspot.com, 23. september 2007

Methinks the believers complain too much

"John Humphrys has commissioned a poll from Yougov to help him sell his new book, In God We Doubt. It shows that 16% of the 2,200 people who responded defined themselves as atheists, 9% agnostics, 28% said they believed in God and 26% said they believed in some undefined “something”.
That comes to a total of 79%. The article reporting the poll didn’t say where the other 21% stood on the belief/non-belief spectrum.
42% thought religion harmful, a statistic which Humphrys explains away with a remark so obvious one wonders why he bothered to make it: “One reason might be the publicity attracted by a handful of mad mullahs and their hate-filled rhetoric.”

[...]

And when spokespeople for the 35% who don’t believe begin to emerge – people like Richard Dawkins, Peter Hitchens, AC Grayling and others – they are denounced from the pulpits and the newspaper columns as “fanatics” and “extremists”. There is a positive library of newspaper articles accumulating expressing this opinion.

[...]

What started out as a campaign by fundamentalist Christians to make the word “atheist” into a term of abuse, which could not be uttered without the addition of an adjective such as “extremist” or “fundamentalist”, has now been taken up big time by the establishment intelligentsia who have never been able to shake off their childhood indoctrination. It’s clear they feel guilty when they even try."

Terry Sanderson, National Secular Society, 7. September 2007

An excellent comment!

On Literal Interpretation

"The theologians who hold this [liberal] view usually claim that large parts of the Bible, or whatever other text, should not be read literally and were never meant to be read literally. Instead, they should be interpreted as allegory meant to convey a spiritual message. [Still] there remains an irreducible core of verses that should be interpreted literally. Usually, these verses are the ones that convey the message of God's existence, his providence, and his love for all of humanity.

[...]

However, though the theologians are pointed in the right direction, I think they have not gone far enough. Their progressive mythologization of the Bible is a good idea, but it stops at an arbitrary point for no good reason. Why don't they go further and admit that the concept of "God" is itself just a metaphor for the way ancient cultures viewed the world? If they were to do this, they'd finally have a theology that is rational and in accord with the evidence, and one with which an atheist could agree without qualm.

[...]

Our response to liberal believers, who want us to take a certain set of scriptural verses literally, is the same as our response to fundamentalists, who want us to take a somewhat larger set of verses literally. If you want to go there and no further, what is your evidence? What are the facts that give us reason to believe that what you say is true?

Daylight Atheism, 20. August 2007

Bill Maher on The Business of the Catholic Church

[T]he Catholic Church has had to pay the largest fine ever for diddling kids, $660 million. [...] Cardinal Mahoney announced that to help pay for the deal, the church would sell a building it owns on Wilshire and about 50 other properties they weren't using, which reminded me, oh yeah, the Catholic Church owns more property out here than Bob Hope did -- and why? Oh, yeah, because it's a business -- and not just a business, really, the greatest business in the world, in that, like all religions, it's selling an invisible product. It doesn't really get easier than that, unless you count Edgar Bergen, a ventriloquist on the RADIO.

Bill Maher, Huffington Post, July 16, 2007