|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 07/17/2007 : 09:14:25
|
I stumbled across this blog, where "university scholars explore and debate religion in the news." In this particular entry, Jacques Berlinerblau holds that| the best-selling spokespersons of one segment of American secularism are fast becoming the soccer hooligans of reasoned public discourse. |
Discuss.
Edited to add:
I'll jump in by arguing against this:| A second problem is that contemporary nonbelief lacks any discernible political dynamism, not to mention power. Here they could learn much from their arch nemesis, the Evangelicals. The latter, with their grass roots organizations, Beltway alliances, pressure groups, D.C. lobbyists and internet manifestos are the model of an efficient (and somewhat frightening) political juggernaut. Celebrities of nonbelief can call Evangelical Christians imbeciles as much as they want. But If imbecility is measured by the metric of political power, then the accusation is misdirected. |
Is this really compelling? Is the fact that the evangelicals sold their figurative souls to the plutocrats in the Republican Party a good thing? It seems to me that all they've gotten out of it is some lip service when it comes to abortion and various bedroom issues. In exchange, the plutocrats have re-written the tax code so that their wealth continues to skyrocket while at the same time dismantling the very social services that most poor and middle class evangelicals can use!
Atheists and secularists cut a broad political swath, from far left liberals to libertarians. I am not sure it would be possible unite under some single banner.
|
Edited by - Cuneiformist on 07/17/2007 09:21:53
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2007 : 09:28:05 [Permalink]
|
| Also not possible for theists to unite under some single banner. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2007 : 13:02:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally quoted by Cuneiformist
But If imbecility is measured by the metric of political power, then the accusation is misdirected. |
And if attractiveness is measured by the metric of net worth, then Bill Gates is the sexiest man alive. Sheesh. Usually, if you want to measure something, you don't use an independent metric. Both smart people and dumb people can wield lots of political power, and having political power doesn't make you smarter.
Cune wrote:| Is this really compelling? Is the fact that the evangelicals sold their figurative souls to the plutocrats in the Republican Party a good thing? |
No, by the argument contained in your title, that the Evangelicals are powerful just makes them "not boring." In fact, it makes them rather scary.
But imagine what things would be like if a bunch of Dawkins-style atheists ran the government:Evangelicals: You're going to outlaw prayer now, aren't you?!
President: No. We don't think you should pray, but we're not going to outlaw it. Doing so would violate the First Amendment.
Evangelicals: Really? Okay. What about this state law we're pushing to include a daily prayer in school?
President: That violated the First Amendment before we all came to power, and it still violates it now. As soon as a case reaches the Supreme Court, they'll strike the law down just like they have all the other times. That doesn't mean that students can't pray in school, it just can't be a school-led prayer.
Evangelicals: Really? Oh. The "live and let live" attitude embodied in the First Amendment's protections of religion is really dull and unexciting. Even if my dream government were to come about, you'd never see the headline, "Evangelicals Allowed to Do As They Please within the Law." Booooooring.| It seems to me that all they've gotten out of it is some lip service when it comes to abortion and various bedroom issues. In exchange, the plutocrats have re-written the tax code so that their wealth continues to skyrocket while at the same time dismantling the very social services that most poor and middle class evangelicals can use! |
Whether a person is an Evangelical or not, the typical Republican voter is the one most likely to be harmed by Republican policies.| Atheists and secularists cut a broad political swath, from far left liberals to libertarians. I am not sure it would be possible unite under some single banner. |
I have little doubt that there exist far-right atheists, as well. According to Kil, the SFN had several of them until some rather heated debates occured right after 9/11 about the appropriate response to that disaster. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2007 : 14:50:15 [Permalink]
|
While atheists are a minority, secularists are the majority. Secularism, applied to politics, put most simply means separation of church and state.
I found this laughable: | Even more useful for lifting secularism out of its rut would be self-criticism. This would be the first step toward re-animating a worthy, though presently moribund, intellectual and aesthetic tradition. |
Secularists having been viciously disagreeing and criticizing each other since at least the dawn of the Enlightenment. I don't think think guy must hang out in atheist/agnostic/skeptic communities all that much if he doesn't realize this. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2007 : 15:39:20 [Permalink]
|
I've been reading Dawkins. If his kind of polite, reasoned, but unafraid and effective argument is being compared to "soccer hooliganism," then some theists must think that soccer hooliganism is a philosophical debating movement.
Seriously, this article is distortion from the first word to the last. These people are terrified of the "New Atheism," and are also trying to smear secularism in general with the same brush. For too long, they've had their ideas exempted from polite debate by general agreement, despite taking on their opponents (often with horrible calumnies) at every step. They don't think what's good for the goose is correct for the gander.
The think they are "special." They can criticize secularists and atheists, but when the shoe is on the other foot, they cry religious discrimination. They better get used to debating.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 07/17/2007 15:48:57 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2007 : 15:08:16 [Permalink]
|
The "New Atheists" as they have been dubbed at least in two magazines that I've seen (Wired and The Nation) have received plenty of criticism from the old Humanist guard. That's why they are called the New Atheists.
Hell, we've had these debates here on this forum plenty of times! (Y'all who have been here a while know that I - though proud of my atheism - note the lowercase "a" stand firmly with the old guard, against the likes of Sam Harris.)
Anyway, here's an article talking about how we freethinkers do criticize each other: http://www.humaniststudies.org/enews/?id=306&article=0 |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 07/18/2007 15:09:05 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2007 : 20:32:52 [Permalink]
|
It also just hit me: How can someone call secularists "soccer hooligans" and at the same time "boring"?
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2007 : 05:31:22 [Permalink]
|
Interesting "debate" between "atheist Christopher Hitchens and humanist Edd Doerr."
Basically, they agree on everything except the definition of the word "religion." Doerr agrees with Hitchens that believing what religions are based on, that is, superstition and dogma is "nonsense" and that acting on those beliefs is dangerous.
That makes Doerr a nice humanist, and Hitchens an evil, loudmouthed atheist. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2007 : 13:02:36 [Permalink]
|
Though such debates are mainly healthy, I think a lot of good energy can be wasted upon them if they become constant. After all such debates, there will remain people who take a harder, or a softer, stand toward religion, those camps very roughly called the "New Atheists" and the "Humanists." (I will use these terms for convenience, though they are poorly defined and have very great over-lap.)
I think the real philosophical issues are less clear than are those of attitude, personality, and approach. "New Atheists" should understand that their "Humanist" counterparts have a legitimate position, and that they also oppose theocracy and the worse abuses of religion. "Humanists" should meanwhile try to understand that an aggressive opposition to religion, but one that does not seek to deny people their private rights to religious practice, is also a legitimate approach.
Of the two camps, the Humanists, seeming less threatening, are arguably more capable of winning over moderate theists to supporting secularism in government, while being less likely to even be interested in getting people to abandon religion. Likewise, the New Atheists are almost certainly the cutting edge in effective atheistic evangelism. They are the ones who are making sure that atheism, as such, is part of the discussion, and that religion, as such, can at last be criticized in polite society.
These two camps have much more in common than they have in opposition. In my opinion, the goals of each are strengthened, not weakened, by the works of the other.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 07/19/2007 15:02:47 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2007 : 15:14:28 [Permalink]
|
Actually, I don't think the debate is about religion necessarily. I think the debate is about faith.
On the one hand, you have people who find faith to be irresponsible, debilitating, and dangerous; and who believe it should be universally discouraged and replaced by the use of reason. Count me in that camp. Then you have those who see some value in faith and only wish to ameliorate its ill effects when it gets out of hand. I don't see those people as willing to address the root problem, and that's mainly why the current divide exists.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2007 : 18:50:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Actually, I don't think the debate is about religion necessarily. I think the debate is about faith.
On the one hand, you have people who find faith to be irresponsible, debilitating, and dangerous; and who believe it should be universally discouraged and replaced by the use of reason. Count me in that camp. Then you have those who see some value in faith and only wish to ameliorate its ill effects when it gets out of hand. I don't see those people as willing to address the root problem, and that's mainly why the current divide exists.
|
That's better stated, in terms of what the debate's about. And I'm with those like you who want to go after the root cause. I don't see the "humanists" as being an opposition. I think we are mainly all in the same camp. The humanists are not beyond the reach of New Atheism's evangelism themselves, since hey are, generally, relatively rational people. They will find it very difficult to quantify, much less justify, the "value" of this irrational thing, faith.
Unlike most theists, they may actually be moved by this. For one such example, since I was first on SFN (early 2006), I personally have moved from a sort of soft agnostic humanism to the harder position of the New Atheists -- mainly persuaded by arguments read here, and by the abuses of the NeoCons and Jihadis.
----------
One a side note: Are there religions that do not require faith? That, for instance, only require a ritual of some kind in order to "work," but whose god(desses) have no overweaning ego requiring constant recognition? (I mean, other than Buddhism, which may not even be a religion.)
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Secularism: boring?
