Friday, July 25, 2008
Over the last couple of years, several commentators have dubbed the fundamentalist Christians as “Christianists” in an effort to reclaim the title of “Christian” from those who do not really live its values.
....
But [PZ] Myers and Dawkins and others are a new breed that makes a faith out of anti-theism and insults believers and their beliefs. While I can understand that some of this is a backlash against the Christianists, and I can be quite sympathetic (especially when, for example, my civil rights as a gay American are trumped by the religious values of hard right Christianists), the rigid binaries of the new atheism are just as limited and fundamentalist as the black and white views of those it purports to disdain. So it is itself a religion, and counter to my secular values.
So, just as you folks don’t like being tarred by the brush that paints James Dobson, don’t tar me or other secularists by the fundamentalist colors of PZ Myers. Let’s instead embrace ambiguity. We'll meet somewhere in the 256 shades of grey and not limit ourselves to the extremes of black and white.
Excellent, IT.
Read the rest of IT's post at the above link to FOJ.
That is one great post - and I love the way that IT looks at things. She is filled with wisdom.
ReplyDeleteI have been in the same room with PZ Myers and I can say that I have no use for the man. He really rubs me the wrong way because I tend to find him about making a god of himself and his line thought.
I have no issue with atheist - or anti-theism. I have a problem with anyone forcing anything on me whether the hard religious right or the atheists.
Thanks, Mimi.
ReplyDeleteIt may be worth noting that I wrote that in July 2008.
IT, I meant to leave the date in the copy, paste, edit process, but somehow it was left out. I've restored it to its proper place.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Mimi.
ReplyDeleteFran, the phenotype you report is one of the many reasons I find so many of my academic colleagues such poor company.
A civilized discussion, not on theism as such but on whether the Catholic Church is a force for good in the world, was at the Intelligence Squared Debate from late last year. The atheistic side of the arguments was presented by a sober Christopher Hitchens and the glorious Stephen Fry. It's on Youtube, beginning here.
ReplyDeleteThanks for this thoughtful reflection. Christians should be aware that one of the charges leveled against them in early days was precisely "atheism" because they denied that the gods existed. Also good to recall that Buddhism is non-theistic.
ReplyDeleteThe real issue, as IT puts it, seems to me to be about how "doctinaire" one is about whatever belief one holds. A little humility and knowledge of ones own weaknesses goes a long way to making discussion reasonable.
Paul (A.), thanks for the link to the fascinating debate. One might say that the atheists won the debate and not be overstating the case. But I have many caveats about tackling such a broad subject in a limited period of time.
ReplyDeleteThe Roman Catholic Church both is and is not a force for good in the world. At times the panelists spoke of the church of history, and at other times they spoke of the church of today. If the question was about the church today and in recent times, then the atheists, especially Hitchens, were way off topic at times. I thought Fry was much better than Hitchens.
The defenses by the archbishop and MP Widdecombe were, for the most part, quite lame. The best statement by Widdecombe was that the church is not just the leadership - that the church is the people, too.
I'm in favor any forum that highlights the appalling position of the RCC condemning the use of condoms and the horrifying results in death and sickness for so many. That condemnation could and should be reversed now.
Still, I find myself dissatisfied after watching the debate, and I'm having a difficult time articulating exactly why.
I think the debate was flawed to start with in that they put Fry and Hitchens (and whatever else you say about them they're both confident, highly eloquent people) up against Ann Widdecombe and some bishop from somewhere. Ann is herself not shy of talking but she's nowhere near as popular as Fry, in fact she's quite disliked, where Fry is adored, so the audience was pretty much bound to vote against her before she opened her mouth.
ReplyDeleteJames Hannam makes this point and some other good points in his thoughts on the subject here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/oct/22/religion-catholicism
(Hope you don't mind my posting this link, Mimi)
I am also with Hannam when he says he wishes someone had asked Hitchens about his support for the Iraq war.
Cathy, a sense of unfairness is one of the factors that disquieted me. I wonder if any of the more skilled debaters in the RCC were invited but declined to participate.
ReplyDeleteWhen Hannam brings up the hereafter, he loses me. True, religious faith brings hope to many for a better life hereafter, but Jesus calls us to build the Kingdom of God here and now, and that's about our time on earth.
To my mind, the debate could have been better if the scope of the discussion had been narrowed.
I actually found PZ quite a bit milder in person than on his blog (I was in a group dinner with him a few weeks ago) though my own preference is more for Hemant Mehta's style.
ReplyDeleteOne of the problems, though, is that when you have a debate like this the atheist side always wins, especially when pitched against the RCC. Believing something against the evidence because your church tells you that you have to believe it is credible as a statement of faith, but not credible from a purely intellectual point of view.
ReplyDeleteYou would have to pitch liberal intelligent atheists like our IT against liberal intelligent Roman Catholics like James Alison to get an intelligent debate.
I just doubt that there are quite so many intelligent liberal Roman Cathlics around - OCICBW
hi Mimi, I don't agree with Hannam on all points, in fact the one point of his I really liked was the one against Hitchens. I used to think Hitchens was a fabulous writer but I think these days he's turning into a caricature of himself. His curmudgeon totally right-wing brother writes foaming-at-the-mouth diatribes for the Daily Mail and really the two of them are not so dissimilar.
ReplyDeleteErika, I think half the problem is the debate format. I am not sure debates ever establish anything much on religion because by definition they set it up as a black and white issue on which you have two distinct sides and the point is to "win". This is the thing that frustrates me greatly with so much anti-theism, that anti-theists treat it as a kind of football match where he/she who gets the last and loudest word is the victor and can therefore claim they're in possession of the truth. Whereas it doesn't matter a damn what any of us think, in one sense - whatever the reality is, none of us can change it, however long we keep talking.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I have much faith in debates in a general sense anyway. The two great arenas in modern life that are ruled by and centre round debate, in a tradition that harks all the way back to classical Greece and Rome, are the law courts and parliament. And when was a genuine attempt at arriving at an honest solution last given a hearing in either of those places?
The Roman Catholic Church of today is an easy target. During the reigns of both John Paul II and Benedict, the direction of the RCC changed for the worse. In the US, Cardinal Ratzinger was known as The Enforcer as a result of his periodic visits to discipline the theologians, professors, and bishops who strayed from the straight and narrow. I knew he would not be good for the church. Even though I had already left the RCC, my heart sank when I heard he was elected.
ReplyDeleteFunny, I was thinking today about that debate, and considering that the format was the problem, and no sensible theologian or philosopher of religion would want to enter into it.
ReplyDeleteThe forum itself encourages pathos over logos, as Aristotle would point out. So that's the first problem. The second is trying to establish the essentially mystical grounds for Xian/Jewish faith on essentially Hellenistic grounds, a combination which has never really worked except when the Church got to dominate the discussion (no disrespect to Aquinas or Augustine meant in that observation, especially since the former only enjoyed that state of affairs, and then only barely). The Church has always, IOW, been in a position of apologetics which either leaves it defending its core, or establishing heresies it can condemn (I'm looking at you, Jean Calvin, and Geneva!).
And the questions of belief and faith are not questions achieved by argument, any more than my love for my wife and daughter, and my friends, is established by reason. To some things, reason doesn't speak, it only converses with. I especially enjoy that conversation, but I never assume I proceed first from reason to existence; I always proceed from existence to reason.
And at some point, that's not established by debate. Or even proven by it.
True, a conversation would be better than a debate.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's about proving either side, though. It's people who believe you can prove theism or atheism who are part of the problem.
All you can do is accept that there is a possibility and then lay out your thoughts about why you opt for this or that side of the fence.
A genuine conversation could really open up the topic and foster understanding and appreciation of both views.
It's not just religion, though, we're so determined to turn everything into an either-or, right or wrong issue that it's really dispiriting.
I would disagree, Erika, on one thing. I don't even have to admit that there's a possibility. I simply have to agree that you see the world differently than I do. I can choose to respect that, or not.
ReplyDeleteIn the US, I think we see this in the attitudes towards partisanship: there's no longer any respect of the other side.
We either respect each other, or not....
Today, I was at a fast food place waiting for my order. A woman came up to the desk, and said "I think you forgot my order!" She did it with a smile, very nice, "no problem" attitude.
what was striking to me was how surprising we found this. Not the error, but her attitude.... friendly, low key, not making an issue out of it.
How rare that has become. Sad.