First off, I’d like to thank Ophelia Benson and Russell Blackford for their kind promotion of my previous post. It was a very pleasant surprise. Thanks to them, this sleepy backwater of a blog got inundated with visitor numbers of several orders of magnitude greater than usual. I’ve been following Ophelia and Russell (wow, first name basis!) on their respective blogs for some time now, and it is an honour to be recognized by two intelligent, articulate and passionate public champions of reason, truth and freedom.
To my new readers, thank you for your attention and comments. I’m a rather sporadic writer, and not much of a micro-blogger (I prefer to post meaty stuff of around 300+ words). But I’ll do my best to make sure that the stuff I do post is worth your time and intellectual engagement. So please do check in every now and then.
Now on with a small extension to my last essay.
In fairness to the critics of supposed New Atheist incivility, not all of them are actually telling Gnus to STFU. And we have to acknowledge that one fundamental reason behind the call for restraint and politeness is that the ‘nice’ atheists are concerned about the negative consequences of incivility; that is, consequences that harm the cause of atheism/humanism/rationalism. On a basic level, ‘nice’ and ‘nasty’ atheists share a common goal: the promotion of atheist/humanist/rationalist values. The ‘nice’ atheists simply have a more pessimistic view of the idea that this goal can be achieved through blunt rhetoric and unsparing criticism. The Gnus, obviously, do not share this doubt.
What is unfair though is the perceptible imbalance in who lectures who on ‘best practices’. I’m prepared to be corrected on this, but it seems to me that while there’s quite a number of ‘nice’ atheists scolding Gnus for taking things too far in their criticism of religion, there’s a paucity of Gnus berating the ‘nice’ atheists for not getting mad enough. There’s a ‘Don’t be a dick’ camp, but no comparable ‘Don’t be a wuss’ camp. It’s usually the DBAD people who fire the first shots at Gnus over their ‘uncivil’ criticism of religion (not DBADness), and the Gnus then indignantly respond to this salvo.
I’d like to think that religion is a complicated enough disease to require various approaches in treatment. The ‘nice’ atheists can continue with their softly-softly methods (which, let’s admit it, aren’t exactly ineffective) while those with a bit more fire in their belly can act as the shock troops of the movement.
So on behalf of the Gnus, I extend an olive branch to the ‘nice’ atheists on these terms: you stop calling us dicks, and we’ll stop secretly thinking what a bunch of lily-livered, conflict-averse surrender monkeys you all are.
Deal?
28.2.11
28 February 2011
23 February 2011
Oh, those nasty atheists!
There’s a civil war raging in the atheist realm. Supposed comrades in godlessness are caught up in what’s come to be known as the DBAD (‘don’t be a dick’) issue. This in-house bickering has probably been going on ever since the first godless heathen bluntly dissed religion and its followers, then got scolded by the less confrontational heathens for being ‘uncivil’. But a turning point of sorts occurred when Phil Plait gave his controversial ‘Don’t Be A Dick’ speech at The Amazing Meeting 8 last July. Aside from giving the phenomena its name, Plait’s speech brought to light the essential divisive point among atheists: should incivility and snark be accepted as tools (weapons?) in the culture wars between religion and faithlessness?
31 January 2011
Worried about Egypt’s future
The night shift security guard at my work was born and raised in Egypt. He’s now an Australian citizen. Most nights he drops by the lab during his rounds for a chat, usually just as I’m finishing up for the day. Naturally, last night’s topic was the Egyptian protests. A few months ago he had gone back to Cairo to get married. His wife is still there and he’s worried. “I told her on the phone to not go outside unless she really has to.”
For many Egyptians (and foreign observers), the thought of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood seizing power from Hosni Mubarak’s despised government is a scary one. Especially for minorities like my security guard friend’s family, who are Coptic Christians. My friend is adamant that if the Brotherhood are in government, Copts like him and his family will be persecuted. “There will be blood.”
His melodrama is understandable. His fear is nothing to be made light of, especially by an outsider like me. “But maybe”, I tried to reassure him, “maybe the moderates in the Brotherhood will keep the extremists in check.” After all, I argued, if they come into power, they’re not going to jeopardise their victory by angering the secularists with brutal acts of oppression. I also mentioned Turkey as an example of a country with a mildly Islamist government that is popular with the people yet has freedom of religion.
My friend’s response was dismissive of the Muslim Brotherhood’s benevolence, and pessimistic about religious freedom should they be calling the shots. He didn’t say it, but perhaps he felt that Egypt under the Brotherhood would be more like post-Islamic Revolution Iran, not Turkey.
Now that’s a scary thought.
In a Guardian article, Kenan Malik sketches Egypt’s tumultuous history of dealing with Islamists, describing how its leaders have used and abused Muslim radicals for political gain, with often violent results. The West has been complicit in all of this of course. For decades Western foreign policy with regards to the Muslim world has taken this cynical formula: support secular dictators and Islamists if it means stability and profits, oppose them otherwise.
But Malik expresses what reasonable liberals have always known; democracy may be a messy, factious and unstable system, but that’s how it’s supposed to be. To impose order on this healthy chaos, whether by secular or religious means, is to pervert the democratic spirit, chiefly because this imposition is top-down, while democracy is by definition bottom-up. And if the people decide that Islamists, whether the AKP in Turkey, Hamas in Palestine or the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, should govern them, then as much as it galls liberal secular humanists like myself, it is their right to elect such a government.
I hope the Egyptian people will give themselves a government, secular or religious, that meets their needs, respects their rights and upholds their freedoms. May they reach this positive milestone with minimum violence and bloodshed.
1.2.11
For many Egyptians (and foreign observers), the thought of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood seizing power from Hosni Mubarak’s despised government is a scary one. Especially for minorities like my security guard friend’s family, who are Coptic Christians. My friend is adamant that if the Brotherhood are in government, Copts like him and his family will be persecuted. “There will be blood.”
His melodrama is understandable. His fear is nothing to be made light of, especially by an outsider like me. “But maybe”, I tried to reassure him, “maybe the moderates in the Brotherhood will keep the extremists in check.” After all, I argued, if they come into power, they’re not going to jeopardise their victory by angering the secularists with brutal acts of oppression. I also mentioned Turkey as an example of a country with a mildly Islamist government that is popular with the people yet has freedom of religion.
My friend’s response was dismissive of the Muslim Brotherhood’s benevolence, and pessimistic about religious freedom should they be calling the shots. He didn’t say it, but perhaps he felt that Egypt under the Brotherhood would be more like post-Islamic Revolution Iran, not Turkey.
Now that’s a scary thought.
In a Guardian article, Kenan Malik sketches Egypt’s tumultuous history of dealing with Islamists, describing how its leaders have used and abused Muslim radicals for political gain, with often violent results. The West has been complicit in all of this of course. For decades Western foreign policy with regards to the Muslim world has taken this cynical formula: support secular dictators and Islamists if it means stability and profits, oppose them otherwise.
But Malik expresses what reasonable liberals have always known; democracy may be a messy, factious and unstable system, but that’s how it’s supposed to be. To impose order on this healthy chaos, whether by secular or religious means, is to pervert the democratic spirit, chiefly because this imposition is top-down, while democracy is by definition bottom-up. And if the people decide that Islamists, whether the AKP in Turkey, Hamas in Palestine or the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, should govern them, then as much as it galls liberal secular humanists like myself, it is their right to elect such a government.
I hope the Egyptian people will give themselves a government, secular or religious, that meets their needs, respects their rights and upholds their freedoms. May they reach this positive milestone with minimum violence and bloodshed.
1.2.11
29 January 2011
Critical thinkers, beware Poe’s Law!
Apparently this has been an internet meme since 2005, but I’ve only just discovered Poe’s Law:
It makes sense; some of the wacky things that come out of the mouths and keyboards of religious and political fundies almost parody themselves. Satirists poking fun at the kooks need to post disclaimers or include some overt sign that they’re taking the piss if they’re not to be confused for the real deal. Especially by overeager folks who let their outrage overtake their caution in checking out the veracity of some unbelievably dumb/crass/ignorant/bigoted fundie-speak.
Poe’s Law recently snared two exemplars of critical thinking, skepticism and reason. P Z Myers got caught by a satirical article on the Burnt Orange Report website that claims Texas governor Rick Perry encouraged Republicans to take their kids out of public schools and put them into private Christian ones. Crispian Jago in turn fell for a post on spoof ‘Christian’ website Christwire.org, which assures God-loving types that it’s ok for a Christian husband to ‘gently beat his wife’.
To be fair to both men though, their respective bugbears give them plausible reasons to have believed the spoof claims made by the satirists. In Myers’ case, Governor Perry is a conservative Christian who is anti-abortion, anti-gay equality, supports creationism being taught in schools, and rejects the scientific evidence for anthropogenic global warming. The words put in his mouth by Burnt Orange Report writer Libby Shaw aren’t too far-fetched given the Texas governor’s religious, economic and political views.
As for Jago, his blog post was aimed at the ‘head fruitcake at the UK's very own fundamentalist conservative Christian pressure group’, Stephen Green, who allegedly physically and sexually abused his wife in private while preaching Christian morality in public. It was in an addendum to this post where Jago quoted from the spoof website Christwire.org, not realising that it actually satirises Christianity.
To their credit, Myers and Jago acknowledged their gaffes. Given that the genuine treasures of criticism they’ve dug up for their readers’ education far outweigh the occasional fool’s gold, I think they deserve a pardon.
Moral of the story: Sure, go forth and righteously (and metaphorically) smite the enemies of reason. But beware Poe’s Law, and always double check your sources lest you quote made-up stupid instead of real stupid.
30.1.11
Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.
It makes sense; some of the wacky things that come out of the mouths and keyboards of religious and political fundies almost parody themselves. Satirists poking fun at the kooks need to post disclaimers or include some overt sign that they’re taking the piss if they’re not to be confused for the real deal. Especially by overeager folks who let their outrage overtake their caution in checking out the veracity of some unbelievably dumb/crass/ignorant/bigoted fundie-speak.
Poe’s Law recently snared two exemplars of critical thinking, skepticism and reason. P Z Myers got caught by a satirical article on the Burnt Orange Report website that claims Texas governor Rick Perry encouraged Republicans to take their kids out of public schools and put them into private Christian ones. Crispian Jago in turn fell for a post on spoof ‘Christian’ website Christwire.org, which assures God-loving types that it’s ok for a Christian husband to ‘gently beat his wife’.
To be fair to both men though, their respective bugbears give them plausible reasons to have believed the spoof claims made by the satirists. In Myers’ case, Governor Perry is a conservative Christian who is anti-abortion, anti-gay equality, supports creationism being taught in schools, and rejects the scientific evidence for anthropogenic global warming. The words put in his mouth by Burnt Orange Report writer Libby Shaw aren’t too far-fetched given the Texas governor’s religious, economic and political views.
As for Jago, his blog post was aimed at the ‘head fruitcake at the UK's very own fundamentalist conservative Christian pressure group’, Stephen Green, who allegedly physically and sexually abused his wife in private while preaching Christian morality in public. It was in an addendum to this post where Jago quoted from the spoof website Christwire.org, not realising that it actually satirises Christianity.
To their credit, Myers and Jago acknowledged their gaffes. Given that the genuine treasures of criticism they’ve dug up for their readers’ education far outweigh the occasional fool’s gold, I think they deserve a pardon.
Moral of the story: Sure, go forth and righteously (and metaphorically) smite the enemies of reason. But beware Poe’s Law, and always double check your sources lest you quote made-up stupid instead of real stupid.
30.1.11
28 January 2011
Asma, Myers & Blackford on religion and atheism
Stephen Asma has responded to P Z Myers’ criticism of his article ‘The New Atheists’ Narrow Worldview’, where Asma argues for the emotional benefits of religion and tut-tuts atheists for not acknowledging this positive aspect. Myers wrote on his blog that Asma had misunderstood the atheist position on religion: the primary issue is not about whether religion makes people feel good or happy, but whether its claims are true. And the reason why truth matters above all else is because falsehoods can cause harm, irrespective of their feel-good effects.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)