Tag Archives: atheism

Bill Maher is right about Abrahamic religion

Rants, To Export, , ,

The pattern that I’ve noticed about Bill Maher is that he seems to be stuck between a rock and a hard place. Every time he criticizes Christians or Muslims, he is criticized in return by the targeted parishioners and praised by the other group of parishioners, and he is almost always criticized by “liberals/progressives/etc” who take him to task for either his “literalism” or his “excuses for American empire”.

The praise heaped upon him by conservative cultural Christian blogs whenever he calls the Quran a “hate-filled holy book” or describes equating religious terrorism between Christians and Muslims “liberal bullshit”, and the praise heaped upon him from progressive blogs whenever he calls the Abrahamic God a “psychotic mass murderer” and Christians “hypocrites”, all come in spades.

I wonder if people will get that his critique of religion is primarily squared against Abrahamic religion in its entirety, ripping apart all of the sanctimonious rhetoric and ideologies espoused in Abrahamic religion regarding personal (and corporate) morality (not just the mythological stuff). Muslims criticize his critique based on the fact that one of his parents practiced Judaism (???? I mean, he was raised Catholic, he hates both Catholicism and Judaism), the Christians espouse everything from merely “praying for that sinner” to wishing torture on the guy.

I’m not an “admirer” of Maher – the “Gay Mafia” bit during the Brendan Eich-Mozilla-Prop 8 issue was rather ignorant and gave ammo to so-called “Persecuted Christians(TM)” – but he does attack Abrahamic religions in both their “conservative” and “liberal” manifestations. He criticizes the Jim Wallises and Tariq Ramadans, the Anjem Choudurys and John Hagees, and does not give one inch to their rationalizing bloviations about their Abrahamic religions.

And he doesn’t mind being called “hateful against” so-called “people of faith” (which is pretty much code for “Abrahamic religionists and their self-appointed leaders” anyway).

So when it comes to critiquing Abrahamic religions, the concept of “faith/belief”, and their often-unfortunate impact upon civil and cultural life in the world, I wish more people would have as similar of an equal-opportunity secularity as that espoused by people like Bill Maher.

Adding more axis to the Dawkins spectrum

Ideas, To Export, , , , , ,

I just came across the Spectrum of theistic possibility, also known as the Dawkins spectrum due to Richard Dawkins popularizing the spectrum in his book The God Delusion. According to Dawkins, the spectrum has seven milestones of range in which one may often find their ideas regarding (a)theism:

  1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: “I do not believe, I know.”
  2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. “I don’t know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.”
  3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. “I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.”
  4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. “God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.”
  5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. “I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.”
  6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. “I don’t know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.”
  7. Strong atheist. “I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one.”

But after reading about the political compass, which expands the range of one’s political ideals to a wider map than the political spectrum, I realized that the Dawkins spectrum could also use a similar expansion of range for placing one’s ideas about (non-)belief, spirituality, ethics and so on.

Potentially, there are quite a few axis to add to the Dawkins spectrum:

  • From Accommodationism to rejection – regarding the question of whether it would be better to work alongside religious persons/forces for the uplift of society with or without a critique of religious ideologies;
  • State involvement with religion –  Ranging from full separation of religion and state to outright institutionalization of religion in state affairs.
  • Trust of scientific advances – Ranging from full trust of modern science to outright distrust and hostility.
  • Social integration – Ranging from proactive integration of diversely-traited groups of people (women, ethnicities, LGBT) into society to hostility against integration and related “liberal” policies.
  • General supernatural encounters – Ranging from personal accounts of certain events in one’s life as being of a supernatural nature to dismissing similar phenomena as being of a natural or psychological origin.

These questions very often come up in a lot of the atheist/freethought blogs which I’ve read over the years (especially Hemant Mehta’s The Friendly Atheist), and they come up repeatedly. The replies from commenters in these blogs reveal a lot about their individual perceptions regarding the role of religious-motivated institutions in society (and secular alternatives/analogues). So I think expanding the spectrum to a Dawkins compass would allow people to reveal more about their belief systems.

In re: Curious Presbyterian on r/atheism

Uncategorized

As a user of Reddit and an avid reader of r/atheism, I would like to respond to your Dec. 17 post on your comparison between r/Christianity and r/atheism:

It only takes a glance down the topic headings to see what I mean. The Christian topics are almost all about faith struggles, reconciling Christian doctrines with the facts of evolution, raising money for good causes, helping suffering people in other parts of the world, discussing various Christian beliefs, etc. There are a couple of threads about atheism, one of them positive, praising Dawkins’ public reading of the King James Bible.

Then turn to the atheist group: almost every thread is knocking, indeed attacking, religion in some way or another (usually Christianity and Christians), often in sneering tones. From almost total positivity on the Christian group we go to almost total negativity on the atheist one. From humility and thinking how to help others – while (ironically) doing quite a bit of self-questioning – on the Christian site, to unself-critical arrogance and belittling of others on the atheist site.

Your view on the "total negativity" of r/atheism’s denizens may not entirely be without merit, but I would defend the negative, angry atmosphere of the forum as a core, but not total feature. Our respective views on atheism and secular humanism aside, I can appreciate much of the top-ranking content on the front page as the outpouring of angry, jaded individuals who were mostly raised within some semblance of a theistically-centered parentage only to protractively "discover" the perceived logical paucity of that aspect of their own upbringing. 

It may be more traumatic than discovering that there is no such person in existence as Santa Claus, but the feeling that you’ve been "had" in the most unquestionably authoritarian manner – by your family, your friends, your local clergypersons, above all – is a feeling that is difficult to shake off. In fact, from the often-stated viewpoint of your fellow theists, some ex-theists are likely to project the anxieties and behavior foisted upon them at a young age against other people who may not be a strident in their exterior rejection of theistic ideology. 

But do I pity those or reject those who make a habit of sarcastic, seethingly-angry posts to r/atheism in order to reflect the predominate theme? Of course not.

I think that many denizens of the forum are younger in age, having just recently spurned the theistically-incorporative or centered worldview in increasing disgust and desiring for an outlet in which they can not only express their anger and assumption (I emphasize: ASSUMPTION) of progressive mental maturity, but also find like-minded, like-situationed peers with whom they can converse on a frequent basis and reinforce their newfound status. 

From that point, where an r/atheism user’s non-theistic secularity takes the user is up to the user alone. I’m very sure that most do not retain a frequent rate of posting to the forum, and some may come across the wider variety of atheist and secular humanist blogs and forums out there (say, RichardDawkins.net, DaylightAtheism.org, Planet Atheism, etc.) in order to find their niche. They may buy the literature, watch the videos, or even go to the offline outings and events for atheists and secular humanists.

But these more niche media outlets are likely to take an overall-different tone and atmosphere than that found on r/atheism. While making the same arguments, they will likely address other perceived reserves of theism, such as the ultimate fate of our minds, the existence of the self apart from the concept of a soul, moral and logical standards existing apart from a perceived theistic authority, the most far-flung effects of theistic worldviews upon whole civilizations, the relationship of the individual with the state and other collectives, the technological upgrading of various aspects of humanity and human existence, and other such topics which do not fall squarely within an atheistically-centered narrative. 

So r/atheism is probably one of the more visible and premiere outlets for young ex-theists, but it is far from the only or last outlet of media and discussion which one should attempt to peruse to aggregate a view of the Internet-using humanist demographic. 

In reciprocation, I do not necessarily judge the logical attractiveness of Christendom by just the letter of the Christian Bible nor by the behavior of those who take the letter of your preferred canon to various extremes (some of which are logical), as there are a number of Christians who are willing to interpret scripture to address the most niche topics which are broached by, say, findings in science and technology or law. The Umma of Islam has many saner elements who are less driven to emphasize the role of religion in public and political discourse or antagonize the usual targets of fundamentalist outrages (one such reputedly-saner individual, the governor of Punjab, was just assassinated by his crazed bodyguard with an AK-47 today for merely expressing a rejection of Pakistan’s blasphemy law).

Yet, permit me to utter my feeling, as an atheist, that I feel less welcome in the country of my birth, the land of the free, because of my personal and public spurning of theism. Permit me to express my mirth at the hostility expressed by many offline neighbors, including my own mother, against those who are more apt to reject the prior imposition of theism within their own inner mental sancta.
I haven’t posted my atheistic "coming out" story to r/atheism, but I can understand why so many are willing to post such expressions of white-hot rage, syruppy sarcasm and so forth. They are angry. They are frustrated. And they want to know how to live their lives without the presence of such a meme as a "deity" within their own lives, mentally bothering them at every turn with culturally-tinged artifacts.
There’s a wider blogosphere to help them with their frustrations and finish the rejection in fuller instances than ever before, and r/atheism is just one of many starts.

So again, the anger and sarcasm which themes much of the content posted to r/atheism?

A feature, not a flaw.

On “Regular Freemasonry’s” argument against atheism

Uncategorized,

 I think it is unfortunate that advocates of the Grand Lodge of England’s positions on regularity generally take an attitude on atheism and irreligion which, in various ways, smells of unnecessary condescension.

While the GLOE has been in a long-running dispute with the Grand Orient of France (the flagship advocacy organization for Liberal/Continental Freemasonry) for the last century and a half over the discussion of members’ religions and the status of women, those derivations of Freemasonry which do include the participation of women and the irreligious are scorned with heated fervor as displayed here. Atheism, in particular, is scorned by dedicated Freemasons as "immature" and lacking in "morality".

I’m not going to dispute their points of contention with atheists (or the validity thereof), but I also don’t want to fall into the trap of stereotyping Freemasonry’s approach to irreligion as an Enlightenment-era prejudice that arose out of a general lay fear of godless moral degradation during the period; at least Freemasons (both Regular and Liberal) have extensively contributed to the various separations of church and state (i.e., United States s.c.s. vs. France’s laicite). I just don’t think that the condescension towards irreligion is necessary in such volumes as are used by Freemasonry’s advocates on the Internet.