56 posts tagged “atheism”

Daniel Dennett's talk at AAI 07 is especially good. I'm loving these videos that are coming out of the conference. Dennett also wins the Richard Dawkins Award. Also features small parts by Julia Sweeney (I am eagerly awaiting her movie Letting Go of God) and Richard Dawkins.

(if you want to skip the introductions and get right to the lecture—I recommend that you don't, but if you do—it starts around 17 minutes)

Remarkable story, if you are unfamiliar with Ayaan Hirsi Ali and her story please watch this speech given at AAI 07. The Q&A is well worth your time as well.

Okay, I agree. I shouldn't be absolving myself of the religion debate simply because I'm not an academic scholar. I agree with you all wholeheartedly on that point and retract that implication.

That being said, I want to make a couple things a bit more clear. I'm not necessarily burnt on the issue. I could write about it full time if I had the resources.

The reason I'm putting the topic aside is for three specific reasons. One, I need to focus more intently on my first love and passion: web design. That's who I really am, not the village atheist.

When I write a blog post on atheism it usually takes me a good hour and a half to compose it, depending on how detailed I want to get. Then responding to comments and feedback is also time consuming. Further, if I'm not familiar with a topic I usually pop open wikipedia and get lost there for quite a bit of time.

This is all time I should (and want to be) using to read up on the latest developments in the web design community. That is something I've been neglecting as of late (the 668 unread feeds in NetNewsWire is a testament to that fact).

Secondly, I feel I've said my peace. I've written on the topic more or less extensively for almost a year. That's more than enough time to get my message across.

Thirdly, I am about ready to launch my "professional" blog on web design. It will be a gaggle of links, resources and opinion on that particular niche. I hope to dedicate an hour or so a day to pursuing that goal and I don't feel that there is enough time to keep up the religion commentary as well as keep on top of my feeds and write that blog.

For those of you who have posted such kind comments regarding my meager blog posts on the topic I thank you so much. Nothing makes me happier than the unintended consequence of someone finding value in my writing. Not to mention all the great discussion that went on in the comments! So again, thanks.

Just for fun, I rummaged through the archives to pick out some of my favorite articles on atheism that I've written (in chronological order).

• Can Atheism Kill?
• On Liberal Christianity: Arguments From An Atheist on Why Christianity Doesn't Make Sense
• Proving God's Existence and Commentary on "Faith"
• When I First Lost Religion
• Atheist Fundamentalism
• An Atheists Take: Some Thoughts on Andrew Sullivan's Latest Response to Sam Harris
• Philosophical Skepticism and Religion
• Religion, Society, and Reform
• I'm Quite Certain They Do Not Listen To What We Are Saying
  

Forgive me, I am unable to sleep (please excuse lack of coherence for I'm suffering mild insomnia) and browsing RichardDawkins.net. This is the latest anti-atheist article to came from The Guardian.

This time it's one Theo Hobson, whom is a British theologian, which is of little surprise to me.

Hobson writes,

The fact is that the relationship between religion, morality and politics is infinitely various and complex. The critic of religious abuses must be specific, particular. He must focus on particular practices, particular institutions, and explain why they have a detrimental effect on society. But the militant atheist cannot humbly limit himself to the realm of the particular; he necessarily lapses into sloppy generalisation.

And you know, he is so right and yet so wrong at the same time. The atheists attacks must be specific (and specific's are indeed mentioned in the books I've read from Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris--I cannot testify to AC Grayling, however), but underlying these specific grievances with the particularly harmful religiosity is a common thread that revels in the irrational.

It is this irrational undertone in religion that often bubbles up and seeks not only to destroy science but the lives of the people who have escaped from this current of malevolence. It is not a fight against religion per se, but a fight against the irrationality inherent in religion that the atheist concerns himself with (1).

What is further ironic is that in his very call to atheists to be more specific and avoid hasty generalizations, he has done the very same. The hypocrisy is bitter sweet.

I have yet to see a rational explanation for any belief in god. The deist's position falls to Occams Razor, and Pantheism is just meddling with semantics. Christianity is inherently irrational as it claims, at it's mildest, to know the mind of a person who we have little evidence of and no direct writings from. There are far better sources to gather inspiration of personal world-view.

And these are the mildest of religions, religions I don't feel threatened by at all, whom many of my close friends identify with. Even the agnostic, who is often uttered in the same breath as an atheist, is at hardship to explain why he must denounce god is an up in the air question when there is no evidence for such a deity.

Then Hobson turns back to the theists tried and true rebuttal, which they seem to believe strike some sort of chord in the atheist. That atheism itself is a faith:

For he has to insist that religion in general is harmful, all of it, always. He has to show that he has the answer: if people shared his total rejection of God, then the world would be a better place. He needs to believe this. For he finds grounds for hope here. If humanity moves away from religion, things will get better. It's a faith.

There is two problems here. The first is that it is quite clear that the opposite could be said of Hobson himself. That he needs to believe in this god stuff, that he believes that the world would be a better place if people shared it with him, and that he finds hope here. This clearly does not prevent him from arguing passionately for his position. Yet he would want to deny the atheist that very right.

The second is that it is unclear (as usual) what Hobson means by "faith." If he means my definition--that is belief despite evidence to the contrary--then he is wrong. There are plenty of good reasons, outlined by many texts, to think that a decrease in irrationality would lead to a better world. There may very well be evidence to suggest the opposite, but that is where the dialogue comes in. To dismiss the atheists "faith" in procuring a better world is hypocritcal and cynical. Most devious of all it is against any forward progression in the dialogue as Dobson purports to shut out the atheist while failing to uphold to his own high standards.  

And for the final attack (2) in his diatribe, Hobson makes this charge:

I consider the atheist's desire to generalise about religion to be a case of intellectual cowardice. The intellectual coward is one who chooses simplicity over complexity and difficulty. The militant atheist chooses to uphold a worldview of Animal Farm crudity: atheist good, believer bad. He has to believe this; it is his claim to the moral high ground.

No, Mr. Hobson, this is not what we've said. It shows your ignorance to the literature that Dawkins and Hitchens have provided. It's easy to see that not all atheists are good, but not all are bad; likewise for believers. In fact, how can an atheist argue this when he simultaneously argues that religion is not necessary for, nor even the source of, moral foundation? It is the irrational corruption of the mind that the atheist loathes.

(1) I should note that this is a gross simplification of the arguments laid out by Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens. This characterization ignores a lot of the nuance which I encourage interested readers to pursue in the mentioned authors books. I should further note not all atheists, not even the aforementioned authors, agree on all aspects of this debate and that dissent is varied. But then again, we like encourage that. Mostly, I'm trying to point out that this generalization does not give the whole picture, something Hobson fails to do in his own article while simultaneously levying that very charge upon atheists.

(2) That is it is the last if you ignore the pitiful Ad hominem attack against Hitchens in the final couple of sentences. As so often the case it seems too easy to pick on Hitchens the man that people seem to overlook his actual arguments.

This interview with Alister McGrath was originally intended for Richard Dawkins documentary The Root of All Evil? For those of you who are more interested in a more sophisticated faith this is an interview you would be interested in. The interview is in full and uncut.

I get the impression that McGrath is making unfair assumptions about the nature of God, while Dawkins tries to probe these assumptions he simply dodges the question with some fancy intellectual footwork. Which, indeed, mirrors my own frustrations with dealing with the more sophisticated versions of theology.

Plus, I liked McGrath a lot more before he got on talking about Jesus.

Penn & Teller's Bullshit examines the bible. Not the original, but a ten minute re-cut. It hits all the major points, though. Also includes tidbits from skeptic and publisher of Skeptic Magazine, Michael Shermer.

Very short as debates go, but worth a listen.

Richard Dawkins Debates Lord Robert Winston

BBC

What kind of atheist are you?
created with QuizFarm.com

I didn't think much of the man, but upon his death I decided not to discuss it here on the blog. I think I'll let Christopher Hitchens do my talking for me on this one.