Author: Ophelia Benson

  • Not a moment sooner, k?

    David Barash wrote another pro-gnu-atheist post a couple of days ago, and Jacques Berlinerblau posted a chippy comment there. His comment was rather sinuous, but the upshot was that yes gnu atheists are just as horrible as everyone says so ha.

    nsmyth made reference to “critical atheists” and she or he has perhaps finally identified the proper term to describe the many scholars who are nonbelievers themselves but who have serious reservations about New Atheist worldview.

    These critical atheists–the list grows longer every day–are subjected to all manner of vitriol and invective by Gnus. Now, the infidel tradition is full of vitriol and invective so I am not entirely opposed to that sort of thing and not averse to giving it a spin myself. But the point raised by nsmyth stands: there just doesn’t seem to be any attempt by many NAs to think through these criticisms seriously.

    It’s JUST vitriol and invective, a reflex like a gagging mechanism triggered by any criticism. That’s why it frustrates so many critical atheists (I assure you David this is not a small cohort and not lacking for serious scholars). Again, I have written a fair amount about this. You can read it if you like and if you do I would be more than happy to discuss it with you privately or publicly.

    Love, Jack.

    You see how it is: The gnu atheists – they do vitriol and invective, and they don’t think, plus they do vitriol and invective. I’ve written about it.

    Well who could argue with that? Not I, certainly – but I did ask him for just a little in the way of specifics. Just a crumb, to be going on with.

    “Again, I have written a fair amount about this.”

    What did you say?

    Really. Just a hint. Just one little paraphrase. So far you haven’t said a thing, you’ve simply scolded like a crow.

    What did he say? Well, not “how dare you compare my scolding to that of a crow!” – but rather, something more civil but also more exigent and dismissive.
    Always great to hear from you. Go to the CHE review I wrote about Hitchens’ God is Not Great. Then a piece in the old Washington Post Book World on Michael Novak’s No One Sees God.

    Then read the book I wrote Thumpin’ It: The Use and Abuse of the Bible in Today’s Presidential Politics. After that, I would urge you to read The Secular Bible: Why Nonbelievers Must Take Religion Seriously (written before the Gnus emerged, but should be of interest to you nonetheless).

    There are other sources, but that’s enough for now. I have a book coming out soon on the subject. So head out to your local library, read up, and let’s talk when you have that all read. But not a moment sooner, k?

    So the deal here is, anti-gnus get to do any generalized character-assassination they want to about gnu atheists, but if gnu atheists have the audacity to ask, “Like what?” then the anti-gnus are entitled to tell the gnus to go read everything and shut up in the meantime.

    This is the sophisticated nuanced vitriol-free scholarship that is supposed to be so much better than what the Gnus do.

    Meh.

  • Measles outbreak in Europe

    WHO blames lack of vaccinations. “There’s been a buildup of children who have not been immunized over the years,” an official said.

  • Religious discrimination at UC Santa Barbara

    An atheist is rejected for graduate work in Religious Studies because he “wouldn’t fit in with our department’s milieu.”

  • Human rights groups outraged at acquittals

    The gang rape was ordered in 2002 by a traditional tribal “court” after Mai’s brother was (falsely) accused of having sex with a woman from a rival clan.

  • Pakistan: Acquittals in Mukhtaran Mai gang rape case

    Five of six men charged over a village council-sanctioned gang rape in Pakistan have been acquitted by the Supreme Court.

  • Last supper was on a Wednesday

    Wednesday, 1 April AD33 to be exact.

  • Jerry Coyne on another Tom Johnson

    Or, what Dawkins didn’t say.

  • Jonathan Derbyshire talks to Sam Harris

    “Yet there are many eminent scientists who also happen to be religious believers” – and we’re off.

  • David Barash on the emperor’s Gnu nakedness

    “I’m not surprised at the criticism by the theological establishment. But I am a bit perplexed at the response of those who profess to share their views.”

  • Malaysian schoolboys sent to butch camp

    They displayed “feminine mannerisms” and we can’t have that.

  • Blair v Hitchens

    The New Statesman has a lot of articles on religion. This is old news; I just thought I’d mention it.

    It has a lot of Name people saying why they believe in god. Why? Because

    In our increasingly secular society, many religious people feel their voices are not heard.

    So the Staggers hands them a microphone. The bishops in the House of Lords and all those “faith” schools aren’t enough; their voices have to be even louder.

    Cherie Blair, barrister
    It’s been a journey from my upbringing to an understanding of something that my head cannot explain but my heart knows to be true.

    See…that’s why we get irritated. Her heart doesn’t know it to be true. Hearts don’t know things. She means something else – not literally heart, but something like the bit of her head that doesn’t feel like doing joined-up thinking. But whatever bit of her anatomy it is, it doesn’t know what she says it knows. She has a woolly “understanding” of something she can’t “explain” yet somehow the woolly bit of her brain “knows” it to be true. The hell it does.

    Peter Hitchens, journalist
    I believe in God because I choose to do so. I believe in the Christian faith because I prefer to do so.

    Now that I don’t mind so much; it has the virtue of honesty. One doesn’t have to peel away annoying bullshit about knowing with your heart.

    (You thought I meant the other Blair v Hitchens, didn’t you. Good joke eh?)

  • Another interview

    I mentioned that interview I did for Humanistpodden the other day; here it is. Johan is remarkably knowledgeable about inter-atheist quarrels, among other things.

    Update: And another thing, as long as I’m in me me me vein. I’m now a columnist for Free Inquiry. The first column will be in the August-September issue.

  • Jesus said some good things

    Chris Stedman is bizarrely indignant that some people disagree with him. Apparently if he writes an article for the Huffington Post, it’s somehow wrong and out of line to write a blog post that disputes it. Why would that be the case? What rule says that Chris Stedman’s articles on the Huffington Post are off-limits to disagreement? I thought it was pretty well known by now that if you write something that gets posted on the internet, there’s always a chance that someone will disagree with it.

    Chris did three updates at Facebook to express this “you disagree with me! you really disagree with me!” outrage, along with a good few comments on same. The first, on my post, says

    Hmm. Some of the comments on this… Well, I’m glad my “personality flaws” are diagnosable over the internet! Who needs therapy? Hey, at least I’m a master in jedi mind tricks? Okay, but seriously: I’d respond, but I’m about to give a talk at Carnegie Mellon. Perhaps some people who actually know me have some thoughts they’d like to share? Or, you know, perhaps this is best left alone. #dontfeedthetrolls

    The second says

    Um, woah. Came back from giving a speech / having dinner with the awesome folks at Carnegie Mellon Aha!: Atheists, Humanist, Agnostics to find myself at the center of SIGNIFICANT DISAGREEMENTS all over the atheist blogosphere.

    The third (as I mentioned in a comment) says

    Who knew that calling people to the ideals of love and compassionate action could ignite controversy?! Oh yeah, Jesus. Lulz. Oh internet, let’s move on to more important things now, shall we? (Like, you know, acting in love and compassion…)

    That last is a funny question. “Who knew that calling people to the ideals of love and compassionate action could ignite controversy?!” Think about it.

    Ok I’ll bite; I knew. I can explain why, too – one reason is the implied claim that the speaker is good and the recipient of the message is not; that the speaker is loving and compassionate and the recipient is something else. There are others: the suggestion to stop doing one thing and do another instead; the backround campaign of vilification of gnu atheists which makes this kind of positioning seem at least suspect; the fact that that kind of pious advice has more than a whiff of churchy missionary sanctimonious versions of “compassion” that not everyone admires; and so on.

    Here’s a blunt statement to motivate Chris to make more outraged updates: not everybody wants “love and compassion” from strangers. As a matter of fact I think most people don’t want that. Love and compassion from strangers is intrusive and presumptuous; it’s too much; it’s not what’s needed or wanted. Chris probably knows that, actually, at some level – I don’t suppose he approaches people saying “I bring love and compassion!” But he doesn’t seem to know that talking about it in the way he does is too close to doing exactly that. There’s a vanity and self-display to it that is really not all that admirable. Check out Matthew 6:3 if you don’t believe me.

  • Salman Rushdie on the samizdat truth-tellers

    Creative figures like Ai Weiwei and his colleagues are often the only ones with the courage to speak truth against the lies of tyrants.

  • Jerry Coyne on religious scientists

    Science recognizes the strong human motivation to believe what we want to be true, and that that drive is a serious impediment in finding out what really is true.

  • New Statesman sucks up to religion again

    “In our increasingly secular society, many religious people feel their voices are not heard.” Cherie Blair for example.

  • Muslims Should Learn to Tolerate Offence and Dissent

    My article on the Afghan Koran protest – an unfortunate incident which left over 20 people dead and many more injured – generated many comments and criticisms on the internet. In fact somebody said the piece was informed by ‘racism and islamophobia’. Well I guess this fellow thought I was a white or a Christian or someone living in the West.

     I do not in this article intend to respond to issues raised by those who read the article. For me let the debate continue. I have made my point. What I said in that piece – and in this very one – applies to many Muslims, not all.

    So, once again in reaction to the protest over the Koran burning in the US and to other similar violent reactions of our Muslim friends to actions and expressions which they consider provocative or ‘an insult to Islam’, I say : learn to tolerate offence and dissent. You cannot expect to live in a world where nobody offends or disagrees with you.

    Yes, Muslims  should learn to live with actions and expressions which they find provocative or annoying.We live in a world of diverse religions and beliefs, so Muslims should not expect that nobody will do or say anything that will offend them. Look: that is not possible. And for those of them who think otherwise now is the time to realize that they are mistaken. Now is the time for them to have a change of mind and attitude for the sake of humanity and civilization.  

    Yes, our Muslim friends need to drop this idea that anybody who says or does something which offends them  should be killed – beheaded, executed, imprisoned – or penalized. If we were to make  that a universal law then nobody would be alive today; or most of us would be in jail. And if ever such a sharia law obtained in the past or during the days of prophet Muhammed then Muslims should know that it is out of place today. If that is what their Koran teaches then they should know that this time around Allah (or whoever must have put such an injunction into ‘his’ mouth) got it wrong; that on this issue they should disobey the Koran.

    Because if we are to go by that sharia law we will find ourselves in a situation of perpetual conflict. Muslims or Islam will be on a collision course with humanity and civilization as is the case in some parts of the world. We will find ourselves in a situation where everybody including Muslims will be in jail or will be dead. In fact all human beings will go into extinction.

    Our Muslim friends should learn to accomodate criticisms or caricature of Islam, of the Koran or of prophet Muhammed. They should know that not all human beings are Muslims. Not all of us are believers in Allah. Not all human beings revere the prophet Muhammed as Allah’s messenger. Not all of us believe in the Koran as the revealed word of Allah. Just as the actions and expressions of Muslims are in line with their beliefs, some other people’s actions and expressions are in line with their unbelief.

    So Muslims should not expect non-Muslims to  treat Islamic beliefs and the prophet the same way they do, just as one should not expect Muslims to revere other religious beliefs. That means some people are bound to make irreverent remarks or expressions about Islam and its doctrines just as Muslims also make or can make irrevent remarks – or remarks which others consider irreverent – about other religions or beliefs. And that is what freedom of religion is all about. If our Muslim friends in Afghanistan were aware of this then the Koran burning in the US would not have generated the violent protests it did. It would have passed without any incident. But it did not.

    Meanwhile, I don’t think protests – violent or otherwise – would stop anyone who wants to burn a Koran or a Bible or any book at all from doing so. They will not. Not everybody who wants to burn books – sacred or secular – goes public as the US pastor did. Surely the pastor was not the first or the only person who has burnt or destroyed a copy of the Koran. On the contrary, violent reactions like the ones we saw in Afghanistan often make some people, who ordinarily wouldn’t have wanted to burn their copies of the Koran, to do so.

    Books are people’s personal property which they dispose of in any way they deem fit. Violent protests by Muslims cannot stop them from exercising this right or power. Muslims must understand this and learn to ignore or react in any other civilized way when anybody decides to publicly dispose his or her copy of the Koran in a way they (Muslims) may consider offensive or an insult to Islam. Instead of saying ‘Kill those who insult Islam’ or ‘Behead those who defile the Koran’,  Muslims around the would should begin to preach and propagate in their mosques and Koranic schools this saying: ‘Ignore those who defame Islam’.  Or better ‘Dialogue with those who criticize Islam’.

    For me that is a more civilized approach. As long as Islam remains in the public sphere, it cannot be shielded from public scrutiny, examination, criticism or caricature.

    The same is applicable to the cartoons of prophet Muhammed. Those cartoons did not warrant the bloodletting we witnessed across the world at all. They did not! In fact it was Muslim clerics who made those cartoons an issue and brought them to the knowledge of the world. If Muslims had ignored those cartoons and the artists behind them, and had not reacted as they did, most people wouldn’t have known about the cartoons. In fact it was the  riots that made me know that it was such a taboo to draw an image of Mohammed. When I heard about the cartoon riots, the question that instinctively came to my mind was “Who is prophet Muhammad that he cannot be cartooned?”

    I  still find it difficult to comprehend why Muslims reacted the way they did. Because if Muslims believe Muhammad cannot be cartooned, there are others who believe he can. If Muslims refrain from drawing the image of Muhammed or from cartooning him in any way out of belief, others draw his image or want to cartoon him in various ways out of unbelief.

    And as we saw, the violent protests did not stop people from cartooning prophet Muhammed. In fact the protests by Muslims led to more cartoons, more printing and reprinting of the cartoons. I guess the way Muslims in Afghanistan reacted to the Koran burning in the US would make or might have made some people to burn or consider buring their copies of the Koran – in counter-protest.

    So our Muslim friends should learn to tolerate anything they consider offensive to them or their religion. They should learn to register their anger or opposition in civilized ways without violence and bloodshed. Because some of these ideas, expressions or dissenting opinions which many Muslims consider offensive are actually bitter truths which are urgently needed to realize Islamic reformation, and the enlightenment and intellectual awakening of Muslims in this 21st century.