The NHS, working with the CofE, uses exorcism as an alternative form of treatment for mental health problems.
Author: Ophelia Benson
-
The Vatican sees its diplomatic role as
Can I be mean? Can I laugh a cruel laugh at the Vatican’s shock-horror that Ireland closed its “embassy” to the Vatican on account of how it was useless?
Catholic Ireland‘s stunning decision to close its embassy to the Vatican is a huge blow to the Holy See’s prestige and may be followed by other countries which feel the missions are too expensive, diplomatic sources said on Friday.
Too expensive and too worthless, being as how the Vatican isn’t actually a real state and therefore “embassies” to it are kind of pointless. It’s been very kind and theocratic and respectful for countries to send ambassadors all this time, but all the same the Vatican really does need to learn to stand on its own two feet in their pretty red shoes.
Ireland will now be the only major country of ancient Catholic tradition
without an embassy in the Vatican.“This is really bad for the Vatican because Ireland is the first big Catholic
country to do this and because of what Catholicism means in Irish history,” said a Vatican diplomatic source who spoke on the condition of anonymity.Yes and what does Catholicism mean in Irish history? Centuries of being priest-ridden; Magdalen laundries; industrial “schools” which were actually prisons for children; child rape; refusal to do anything about child rape.
Dublin’s foreign ministry said the embassy was being closed because “it yields no economic return” and that relations would be continued with an ambassador in Dublin.
The source said the Vatican was “extremely irritated” by the wording equating diplomatic missions with economic return, particularly as the Vatican sees its diplomatic role as promoting human values.
Promoting human values. Human values. What the fuck does the Vatican have to do with promoting human values – the whole point of the Catholic church is that the values are goddy values, not human values. What human values? Kidnapping single women who get pregnant and then keeping them in prison at hard labor for years, after taking their babies away from them? Kidnapping the children of poor women and keeping them in prison at hard labor for years? Telling poor women their babies died and selling those babies to people with more money, as nuns and priests did in Spain? Protecting child-raping priests and bullying their victims into silence? Ordering people not to use condoms for no earthly reason, in the full knowledge that many people will die as a result, leaving orphan children? Human values – how dare the Vatican “see its diplomatic role as promoting human values”?
-
Atheism for the World
When we organize atheism to benefit atheists only, when we promote atheism among atheists and for the good of atheists, when atheist groups defend only the interests of atheists, we make the world poorer and rob humanity of an inestimable good. This is often the way I feel when I try to reflect on how atheism is being organised today. I come from a part of the world where atheism is not something many people will openly identify with. I come from a part of the world where many people are suffering and dying due to theism’s stranglehold on their lives. I come from a part of the world where there is so much need for atheism. I think it is the rest of the world, not only atheists, that needs atheism most. So atheists have the moral obligation to put this liberating and enlightening outlook at the world’s disposal, at humanity’s disposal. Atheists should strive to ensure that other humans enjoy the atheistic good, because there are many out there yearning for it. Many people are longing to experience the atheistic good or live in an atheistic space in their life time, particularly those languishing and suffocating due to religious exploitation and theistic tyranny.
They are so many of them out there. Women, children, people with disabilities, the elderly, minority groups, victims of religious persecution and inquisition, you name them, who are longing to experience and enjoy the atheist land of promise even without being atheists themselves.
No question, over the years, decades and centuries, atheists have been demonized and denounced. Atheists have been persecuted, executed and discriminated against. In fact atheists have been equated to fools. One of the authors of the bible says it is only the fool that says in his heart that there is no God. This verse is often quoted by christians to discredit atheism, and to make the atheistic outlook seem so terrible, so unfitting for human beings. But in spite of that, atheism has been growing from strength to strength. Atheistic groups and activists are emerging in different parts of the world including Africa.
The enduring value and vitality of atheism has been vindicated, thereby making a fool of the biblical author.
In many parts of the world atheists have managed to organised themselves. Organized atheism is waxing strong. Atheism is gradually being mainstreamed. Many christian believers are beginning to think that the author of the biblical psalm might have fooled them. Some believers in other sacred writers are beginning to question the so called revealed wisdom. In many societies, people are beginning to wake up from their theistic slumber. Many are rethinking their faith and voicing their doubts. Many people are beginning to realize the necessity of atheism. Many people are beginning to experience and embrace the liberating and enlightening promises of the atheistic outlook.
Still there is a lot of work to be done. Many parts of the world are still in the dark, under religious darkness. Many parts of the world are still in the woods – the theistic woods. Humanity still has a long way to go before it can be said to be truly free from religious, superstitious and theistic bondage. So many parts of the world are still yearning for the freedom, hope, light and happiness that come with atheism, with an atheistic awakening. So the world and the rest of humanity are looking up to atheists to deliver this important good. Yes, many human beings around the world are looking up to atheists for support, salvation and solidarity, because they think it is only atheists who have the cognitive and moral courage to challenge and unmask the theistic tyrants, exploiters, enslavers and oppressors.
They believe that it is only atheists that can deliver this secular good unadulterated. That is why I am appealing to our atheist friends to realize this fundamental need and take steps to fufill it. The time has come for us to change the way we do and organize atheism so that we can address this need, and render this service to humanity. Atheism is a global good and requires a global approach.
Atheism should not just be organized for atheists alone. Atheism should be organized for the world. Atheists should look less inward and more outward so that we can extend atheistic moral excellence to others. We should devote more time and energy to reaching out and getting more people out there to experience and have a taste of atheistic solidarity.
We, atheists, do not need atheism, do we? No, we don’t. We are already atheists. We embody the values, principles and sentiments of atheism.
Atheists do not need atheism. The world needs it. Humanity needs it to grow develop and flourish. Humanity needs atheism for emancipation and enlightenment. So let’s strive to organize atheism and put the atheistic goods at the world’s disposal, at humanity’s disposal.
-
Secular groups on religious campuses
Jesse Galef has heard from Baylor students who said they felt threatened with expulsion because of their lack of faith.
-
A former follower of Michael Pearl on the death of Hana Williams
Rule 8: Be joyful about chastising your baby all day. Praise God while you slap a three-month-old’s hand with a ruler and think about how godly he’ll turn out.
-
Michael Bérubé on Libya and the left
“When a group of people who are about to be massacred ask for help, what do you do?”
-
She rebelled herself to death
There’s a terrifying piece at No Longer Quivering, by a former believer in the child-rearing methods of Michael Pearl. She followed the plan; it didn’t work; she did what Pearl said to do, and followed it harder. Hit harder, was what you were supposed to do when it didn’t work. Hit harder, and blame the child. She had a hard time with that, but her ex-husband didn’t.
My ex-husband got angry with the kids for thwarting the Pearl method, but he remained coldly self-controlled. He also left bruises. A lot of bruises.
Why didn’t I stop him? I finally did, but early in my marriage I was paralyzed by fear and brainwashed by bad teaching. We both feared raising ungodly kids. We were looking for confirmation that some part of this system worked, and my ex-husband began to get results. The children flinched when he even moved. Cowered when he reached for a spanking implement. Had semi-seizures on the carpet following “biblical correction.” We got compliance with our wishes. Eventually, there was immediate and unquestioning compliance. My ex-husband had quelled the rebellion in three kids. He had created unfocused, freaked-out little robots who obeyed.
That last sentence chills me.
To Train Up a Child is a manual of progressive violence against children. Not only are there no stopgaps to prevent child abuse, the book is a mandate to use implements to inflict increasingly intense pain in the face of continued disobedience. The part about not causing injury is vague and open to interpretation, but the part about never backing down or shirking your parental duty to spank harder and harder is crystal clear. The Pearls’ teachings will lead, inescapably, to extremely strong-willed kids being abused and sometimes murdered by fundamentalist parents who are determined to “break” those children.
Like Hana Williams.
The only way to break the wills of children like this is to kill them. The 911 call that Carri Williams made to the police dispatcher says it all.
“Operator: What’s the emergency?
Carri Williams: Um, I think my daughter just killed herself.
Operator: Why do you say that?
Carri Williams, Um, she’s really rebellious, and she’s been outside refusing to come in, and she’s been throwing herself all around, and then she collapsed.”
And died of exposure, with her mouth full of mud. Because she was so rebellious.
-
What theology knows and how it knows it
Naturally in the wake of the video suppression-and-unsuppression I’ve been thinking again about the “what” of theology. I’ve been thinking about theology as an academic discipline and department, and how that works, and relatedly, about how it knows what it claims to know, and how it knows it knows it. Yes really: both of those: because surely that’s a minimal requirement for an academic: not just to know things, but to know (and be able to explain) how you know them.
I always think about that when reading or listening to (listening to being a much slower and thus more squirmy frustrating process) John Haught and theologians like him (Alister McGrath for instance). I also think about it when reading Paul Tillich. I think about the “minimal requirement for an academic” aspect. How does he get away with it? How does this work? Is theology just exempt from that minimal requirement, and if so why? Just a hangover from the past, when theology was central as opposed to marginal-bizarre?
What are the criteria for theology as an academic discipline? How do practitioners tell good theology from bad? Is there such a thing as “wrong”? Is there falsification? Is there peer review? Are there any boundaries – any checks on what we outsiders see as making stuff up?
Does it have an epistemology at all? Does it pay any attention to how it knows what it claims to know? Does it have clear standards? Is knowledge of the field all it takes? Is it hermetic and insular: internally consistent (or not) but of no interest otherwise?
Does Haught think about any of this? He argues against what he calls “scientism” (which may or may not agree with what philosophers mean by it), but even if “scientism” is wrong does that make theology right? Even if science is not the only way to find things out, does it follow that theology is another way to find things out? (I know the answer to that, because it’s so obvious. I know only obvious things. No, it doesn’t follow, because theology is not the only alternative to science.) Can you get from the error of scientism to the reliability of theology? No.
Is theology a form of knowledge? If so, what kind? What is its methodology? How does it know what it claims to know? Does it have peer review? If so, what do the peers review? What makes theology better or worse?
Haught talked about personal transformation (as necessary for getting at the truths of religion, or something along those lines). That’s a strange idea. Usually the more reliable way to get at knowledge, facts, truth, good evidence, is to learn the appropriate methods and unlearn the other kind. It entails learning not to trust your gut or your guesses, let alone your wishes. “Personal transformation” sounds like learning the opposite. Being “carried away” sounds like surrender to one’s own existing biases and wishes.
This is all very puzzling to me.
-
This tests _____________
So thinking about this athletic ability/strategic intelligence test I’ve been pondering what other tests would show.
A test for atheists and theists, for instance. A test in which the subjects would be told “this tests your generosity” – or warmth or empathy or compassion or altruism or kindness. I wonder if the theists would be primed to do better while the atheists would be primed to do worse.
That would be my guess, at least. I bet I have that stereotype. Do I also consciously believe it? Yes, maybe. I at least believe it’s possible.
I don’t think theists have a better metaethics than atheists; I think the reverse. But I think they might have a better motivation…depending on what kind of god they believe in. The god that a lot of people believe in is really quite nasty, and I don’t think that god motivates much extra kindness or generosity. Nevertheless “God” is supposed to be super-good, and people who both believe that and have a sane idea of what “good” means might well be motivated to try to live up to a god of that kind. That could be enough of an extra prod that they would actually be on average a few points more generous.
What if there were a test in which subjects were told it was testing their rationality? That one is more enigmatic to me, because I don’t know which stereotype believers would buy into – ours or theirs.
Or a test in which they were told it was testing for innate scientific ability? I bet that one would skew the other way – believers doing worse, atheists doing better. I’m just guessing. Social psychology is interesting though, no question.
-
Social contingencies
Thanks to Stacy Kennedy on the Stereotype threat thread I’m reading Claude Steele’s Whistling Vivaldi.
He notes that we in the US live in an individualistic society.
We don’t like to think that conditions tied to our social identities have much say in our lives, especially if we don’t want them to.
We’re supposed to rise above such things. He subscribes to that idea himself. But –
But this book offers an important qualification to this creed: that by imposing on us certain conditions of life, our social identities can strongly affect things as important as our performance in the classroom and on standardized tests, our memory capacity, our athletic performance, the pressure we feel to prove ourselves…[p 4]
We’re all subject to it. All.
Suppose you go to a psych lab and play miniature golf. Suppose you’re told before you start that the task measures “natural athletic ability.” Guess who does badly. White students. Then again suppose you’re told the task measures “sports strategic intelligence.” Guess who does badly. Black students.
Striking, isn’t it.
-
Have some slush
Changing the date on this because of renewed relevance.
A re-post of one from a year ago when I was reading God and the New Atheism by John Haught.
October 18, 2010
John Haught says, in God and the New Atheism, that gnu atheists get faith all wrong, at least from the point of view of theology, which
thinks of faith as a state of self-surrender in which one’s whole being, and not just the intellect, is experienced as being carried away into a dimension of reality that is much deeper and more real than anything that can be grasped by science and reason. [p 13]
You know…there’s a problem here. I would like to say something sober and restrained about that; I would like to give a cool, sarcasm-free account of what I think is wrong with it, for once; but I find it very hard to do that, because it seems so babyish. I can’t get past the babyish quality, because if I do, there’s nothing left. It’s babyish all the way down. And that’s typical of Haught, at least in this book. It’s just packed with baby talk.
But I’ll give it a shot. The trouble is (obviously) that “a state of self-surrender” is indistinguishable from a state of self-deception, and is the sort of state to invite self-deception. An experience of being carried away into a gurgle-gurgle sounds just like either a hallucination or a powerful daydream. Period. There’s nothing else to say about it. That’s what’s so babyish – Haught has dressed it up in the usual boring purple language to make it look significant and meaningful and maybe even true, and that’s just silly. He’s also installed a handy device for forestalling the question “yes but what exactly do you mean by ‘a dimension of reality that is much deeper and more real than’ yak yak?” by making it the faculty that asks the question the comparison. That question is an emissary from science and reason, and the dimension is much deeper and more real than that, so the question is by definition not answerable, so ha.
…there are many channels other than science through which we all experience, understand, and know the world…To take account of the evidence of subjective depth that I encounter in the face of another person, I need to adopt a stance of vulnerability. [p 45]
Bollocks. He’s talking about unconscious processing, among other things (like empathy, intuition, and the like), but those are not dependent on adopting “a stance of vulnerability.” He uses sentimentality to persuade, and it’s a babyish trick.
…if the universe is encompassed by an infinite Love, would the encounter with this ultimate reality require anything less than a posture of receptivity and readiness to surrender to its embrace?
Same thing – attempted persuasion via sentimentality. Why infinite Love? Why not infinite Hate?
Well we know why: because when you go limp and let yourself go off into a lovely fantasy, you don’t fantasize about infinite Hate. But Haught’s confidence that his fantasies reflect reality (and indeed are realer than anything else) is…foolish.
-
High ranking chaplain leaves out ‘so help me god’
The military’s climate of hostility towards atheists is beginning to change. Foxhole atheists like Justin Griffith are slamming the ‘atheist closet’ door shut behind them.
-
Solidarity avec Charlie Hebdo
Maryam Namazie, in solidarity with Charlie Hebdo (which planned an edition with Mohammad as guest editor), features Mohammad as a guest blogger.
See some other articles she has written on free expression and the Islamic inquisition:
The Islamic Inquisition
Free expression no ifs and buts
Islam must be criticised
Offensive shomfensive
Apologise for what: On the Mohammad caricatures -
The video
The Coyne-Haught video has been posted.
Watching. Watching and listening to Haught. Sigh.
We should talk about cosmic purpose; it’s good to talk about cosmic purpose. Metaphors are ok.
It’s a traditional philosophical view that a smaller thing can’t understand a greater thing.
There is evidence: the evidence that comes from being carried away by something very large, very important.
If this ultimate reality has no personality, if it’s an it, it’s smaller than we are.
Religions emphasize the importance of personal transformation.
Medieval philosopher would be skeptical that science is wired to understand deeper meaning.
I’m not convinced of anything yet. Perhaps that wasn’t the goal.


