Sorry, Dawkins (where is the edit function?). For some reason my brain wants to confuse Richard Dawkins with Ronald Dworkin, the philosopher of jurisprudence.
Funny, 'cause I like Dworkin's work.
Oh, well...old age that is tied to me as to a dog's tail, and all that....
Rmj, yes, yes, yes, of course we have evidence. Can we never have a laugh at our own expense? After all, some amongst us who share the name Christian are actually like Jesus and Mo.
Have I managed to offend Christians and atheists alike?
IT, you'll always be my favorite atheist. No one will ever take your place. And you're not anti-thiest, and you're smart and knowledgeable when you speak of faith.
Rmj, the belligerent and ignorant atheists don't bother me nearly as much as they seem to bother some of my fellow Christians, because I don't pay much attention to them. Having read a little of what they write goes a long way....
I've only ever read the snippets of quotes from "new atheists" that have been posted by various bloggers and other online sources. While some of the things I've read have given me cause to roll my eyes, cringe, and sympathize with Christians, I'll also note that some Christians (no one here) have a somewhat...curious view on what it means to be the recipients of belligerence or persecution.
I mean, when you have groups that insist that the radical notion that LGBTQI teens shouldn't be bullied is a "radical homosexual agenda" and that a store's decision to wish customers "Season's Greetings" during December in order to be respectful to and inclusive of all is an "attempt to silence Christianity," you really do have to wonder at times....
I'll also note that some Christians (no one here) have a somewhat...curious view on what it means to be the recipients of belligerence or persecution.
Jarred, indeed! My stock suggestion to Christians in the US who feel "persecuted" is that they visit certain countries in the Middle East and Africa to see what real persecution is like.
And those "Christians" who think bullying gay teens is fine, that it serves to toughen up the kids, well they give us all a bad name, which is one reason why I post cartoons like Jesus and Mo, so I don't become smug and self-satisfied about Christianity.
Richard Dawkins is, as far as I can work out, perfectly polite. He's pointed out himself that he's certainly politer than the average restaurant review. And he's an excellent writer, with a vivid turn of phrase (so's Christopher Hitchens, of course, and PZ Myers can sometimes surprise me too).
Oh, well, I'll come in late to defend myself (a bit):
Dawkins and Hitchens are eloquent and glib. They have no ideas, but they have words. Dawkins parades his ignorance of religion as a badge of honor, and then denigrates the very idea of religion. Were I to do the same to science (declare my ignorance of it a virtue, and science a scam) I wonder how eloquent and polite I would have to be to get any attention?
No one needs to agree with me on this, of course.
Which is not to say I feel persecuted or put upon by Dawkins or Hitchens, et al. I just don't find them intelligent in their critiques (I learned much better critiques in seminary). Nor do I find them (in their writings, and in Hitchens' public presentations) much interested in a civil discussion of the issue. I've been studying theology and philosophy of religion most of my adult life; they have pointed refused to learn anything about either subject. They don't persecute me; their ignorance annoys me.
And sometimes I find "Jesus and Mo" funny, and sometimes I don't. As I said originally: Go and please the world.
It's true that Dawkins is quite polite and affable, but either he is woefully ignorant about Christianity, or he repeatedly uses the fallacious form of argument of setting up straw men only to knock them down. Neither the ignorance nor the fallacies lead me to give his work or his words respect.
Affable and polite and the ability to write a vivid turn of phrase don't do it for me. Personally, I don't understand the huge amount of attention that Dawkins attracts. As I've said, I've read a little of his writing and heard him enough on the TV to know that I don't wish to give him my time or attention. I don't dislike him at all. I just don't pay attention to him or let him bother me.
However, I give great weight to the words of atheists such as my good friend IT, who commented above, who is not only an award-winning, working scientist but also an atheist who knows a great deal about the faith in which she does not believe. When she speaks, I listen.
Rmj, I give an "Amen" to your entire comment, with two exceptions, including your words about Jesus an Mo. Sometimes I think they're funny and sometimes not. Humor is a very personal thing.
The author of the Jesus and Mo strip dropped into my comments to say that he/she thought we were quite generous in our ability to appreciate the humor of the comic strip which mocked us and that maybe the good things that were said about at least some Christians was really true. I loved that she/he did that. The day we can't laugh at ourselves, we are doomed, or so I believe.
The two exceptions to your commentary are that Dawkins seems to annoy you more than he annoys me and that I have not studied theology my entire adult life, although I've read and thought quite a bit about matters theological over the years. I've also learned much about theology from your writings on your blog, for which I thank you.
Well, I've read two books by Dawkins, The God Delusion and The Greatest Show on Earth. The science book was definitely better. I have The Selfish Gene and Unweaving the Rainbow waiting on my shelves. And I've read one book by Christopher Hitchens, yes, God Is Not Great. As polemic, it's wonderful. As rational argument, I'm not so sure.
My relationship with religion is complicated and confused. Leaving the Witnesses was a drawn-out process and included many interviews with the elders, which all ended up being the same never-ending conversation.
Them: You're only leaving the Witnesses because you're gay. Me: I have actually considered that my motives may not be pure. I've wrestled with my conscience over this and come to the conclusion that I actually do have good reason to leave. Besides, if I was going to just pick a belief that suited me, I'd've gone for liberal Christianity, not atheism.
We had this conversation again and again and again, and it got frustrating, as they obviously weren't listening to me. In fact, it gradually became clear that they had no respect for me at all, which somewhat influenced me to lose a lot of my respect for them.
So I left. And that was that. For a while, I posted on the messageboards at CARM, which seem designed to make angry atheists angrier. My other main contact with religion was Pharyngula and gay news blogs, which do tend to highlight the worst aspects. (Box Turtle Bulletin has religious writers, and is pretty good at talking about those religions which support human rights.) Too often, I've seen people angrily trying to make the world less fair, less equal, less pleasant, and simultaneously claiming to be the most moral people around. That's not morality as I understand it, but it is morality to far too many religious people.
More recently, I've rediscovered slacktivist (and, now, The Slacktiverse), and I'm working to reacquaint myself with the better side of religion. I've never forgotten it exists, but it easy to focus on the worse side. It makes more noise. I do try to be fair to religious people, but I do see where Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris are coming from. (Have you read Letter to a Christian Nation?)
So, I'm trying to move into a better understanding of the reality of what religion is for many people, while at the same time respecting my own right to be angry at the religious attacks on human rights and to be dismissive of shoddy arguments and baldly stated claims.
And this seems to be a good place to add that the Courtier's Reply above is noted and dismissed.
TRiG, whew! You cover a lot of territory. I know very little about Jehovah's Witnesses. I don't engage with them when they come to my door, perhaps because of my bad experiences with Mormons with whom I have engaged, and I find that they do not listen well, and they will be satisfied with nothing less than conversion to Mormonism. I finally had to be quite firm to keep them from coming back with the same old, same old.
With the Witnesses, I am polite; I accept their literature, but I do not engage. Perhaps I should, but after what you say, I probably will continue my present policy.
CARM seems focused on highlighting and rooting out heresies and not at all my kind of place. My central focus is on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ in the Gospels.
Too often, I've seen people angrily trying to make the world less fair, less equal, less pleasant, and simultaneously claiming to be the most moral people around. That's not morality as I understand it, but it is morality to far too many religious people.
I see the people you describe, TRiG, and it makes me sad that folks who call themselves Christians act in ways that are hurtful and promote policies of inequality and injustice. But I say to you and to the angry atheists, "Please! Do not paint us all with the same brush!"
There are atheists, and there are atheists. My atheist friend IT distinguishes atheists from anti-theists. It seems that angry groups of Christians and angry groups of atheists will not be satisfied with tolerant co-existence and civil discussion.
I agree that angry and intolerant Christians who try to force their ways on all of us make more noise than the rest of us, and I'm not sure how to effectively counter the view that Christians are all the same.
I do what I can here on my blog to be a Christian voice for inclusion, justice, and equality and to demonstrate that at least some of us are respectful of differing views. I don't know what else I can do.
Dworkin? Hitchens? Phalyngula? The lame attempts of Bill Maher? Do those names ring a bell for the cartoonist?
ReplyDeleteNot really outraged, but, yeah, I've got evidence to back up that accusation.
Sometimes funny, sometimes not. Go and please the world.
Sorry, Dawkins (where is the edit function?). For some reason my brain wants to confuse Richard Dawkins with Ronald Dworkin, the philosopher of jurisprudence.
ReplyDeleteFunny, 'cause I like Dworkin's work.
Oh, well...old age that is tied to me as to a dog's tail, and all that....
Rmj, yes, yes, yes, of course we have evidence. Can we never have a laugh at our own expense? After all, some amongst us who share the name Christian are actually like Jesus and Mo.
ReplyDeleteI think I'll give up blogging.
No, no, I wasn't criticizing your choice of cartoon, just responding to it.
ReplyDeleteAs I say: sometimes funny, sometimes not. YMMV, of course.
And no disrespect intended.
Maybe I'm just tired of running into belligerent atheists on the interweb....
....and some of us here are atheists, tho' not like Dawkins...
ReplyDeleteSome of the most Christian people I've ever known were atheists.
ReplyDeleteTruth.
It's the "belligerent" I can do without. On either side, whether it is active or (as in the cartoon) passive.
Anyway, I'll stop now.
Have I managed to offend Christians and atheists alike?
ReplyDeleteIT, you'll always be my favorite atheist. No one will ever take your place. And you're not anti-thiest, and you're smart and knowledgeable when you speak of faith.
Rmj, the belligerent and ignorant atheists don't bother me nearly as much as they seem to bother some of my fellow Christians, because I don't pay much attention to them. Having read a little of what they write goes a long way....
I've only ever read the snippets of quotes from "new atheists" that have been posted by various bloggers and other online sources. While some of the things I've read have given me cause to roll my eyes, cringe, and sympathize with Christians, I'll also note that some Christians (no one here) have a somewhat...curious view on what it means to be the recipients of belligerence or persecution.
ReplyDeleteI mean, when you have groups that insist that the radical notion that LGBTQI teens shouldn't be bullied is a "radical homosexual agenda" and that a store's decision to wish customers "Season's Greetings" during December in order to be respectful to and inclusive of all is an "attempt to silence Christianity," you really do have to wonder at times....
I'll also note that some Christians (no one here) have a somewhat...curious view on what it means to be the recipients of belligerence or persecution.
ReplyDeleteJarred, indeed! My stock suggestion to Christians in the US who feel "persecuted" is that they visit certain countries in the Middle East and Africa to see what real persecution is like.
And those "Christians" who think bullying gay teens is fine, that it serves to toughen up the kids, well they give us all a bad name, which is one reason why I post cartoons like Jesus and Mo, so I don't become smug and self-satisfied about Christianity.
I believe Dawkins gets along fairly well with retired bishops Harries (Oxford) and Holloway (Scotland).
ReplyDeleteAh well, Erp, that's something, then.
ReplyDeleteRichard Dawkins is, as far as I can work out, perfectly polite. He's pointed out himself that he's certainly politer than the average restaurant review. And he's an excellent writer, with a vivid turn of phrase (so's Christopher Hitchens, of course, and PZ Myers can sometimes surprise me too).
ReplyDeleteI've never understood the dislike of Dawkins.
*shrug*
Oh, well, I'll come in late to defend myself (a bit):
ReplyDeleteDawkins and Hitchens are eloquent and glib. They have no ideas, but they have words. Dawkins parades his ignorance of religion as a badge of honor, and then denigrates the very idea of religion. Were I to do the same to science (declare my ignorance of it a virtue, and science a scam) I wonder how eloquent and polite I would have to be to get any attention?
No one needs to agree with me on this, of course.
Which is not to say I feel persecuted or put upon by Dawkins or Hitchens, et al. I just don't find them intelligent in their critiques (I learned much better critiques in seminary). Nor do I find them (in their writings, and in Hitchens' public presentations) much interested in a civil discussion of the issue. I've been studying theology and philosophy of religion most of my adult life; they have pointed refused to learn anything about either subject. They don't persecute me; their ignorance annoys me.
And sometimes I find "Jesus and Mo" funny, and sometimes I don't. As I said originally: Go and please the world.
Hi TRiG, welcome.
ReplyDeleteIt's true that Dawkins is quite polite and affable, but either he is woefully ignorant about Christianity, or he repeatedly uses the fallacious form of argument of setting up straw men only to knock them down. Neither the ignorance nor the fallacies lead me to give his work or his words respect.
Affable and polite and the ability to write a vivid turn of phrase don't do it for me. Personally, I don't understand the huge amount of attention that Dawkins attracts. As I've said, I've read a little of his writing and heard him enough on the TV to know that I don't wish to give him my time or attention. I don't dislike him at all. I just don't pay attention to him or let him bother me.
However, I give great weight to the words of atheists such as my good friend IT, who commented above, who is not only an award-winning, working scientist but also an atheist who knows a great deal about the faith in which she does not believe. When she speaks, I listen.
Rmj, I give an "Amen" to your entire comment, with two exceptions, including your words about Jesus an Mo. Sometimes I think they're funny and sometimes not. Humor is a very personal thing.
ReplyDeleteThe author of the Jesus and Mo strip dropped into my comments to say that he/she thought we were quite generous in our ability to appreciate the humor of the comic strip which mocked us and that maybe the good things that were said about at least some Christians was really true. I loved that she/he did that. The day we can't laugh at ourselves, we are doomed, or so I believe.
The two exceptions to your commentary are that Dawkins seems to annoy you more than he annoys me and that I have not studied theology my entire adult life, although I've read and thought quite a bit about matters theological over the years. I've also learned much about theology from your writings on your blog, for which I thank you.
Well, I've read two books by Dawkins, The God Delusion and The Greatest Show on Earth. The science book was definitely better. I have The Selfish Gene and Unweaving the Rainbow waiting on my shelves. And I've read one book by Christopher Hitchens, yes, God Is Not Great. As polemic, it's wonderful. As rational argument, I'm not so sure.
ReplyDeleteMy relationship with religion is complicated and confused. Leaving the Witnesses was a drawn-out process and included many interviews with the elders, which all ended up being the same never-ending conversation.
Them: You're only leaving the Witnesses because you're gay.
Me: I have actually considered that my motives may not be pure. I've wrestled with my conscience over this and come to the conclusion that I actually do have good reason to leave. Besides, if I was going to just pick a belief that suited me, I'd've gone for liberal Christianity, not atheism.
We had this conversation again and again and again, and it got frustrating, as they obviously weren't listening to me. In fact, it gradually became clear that they had no respect for me at all, which somewhat influenced me to lose a lot of my respect for them.
So I left. And that was that. For a while, I posted on the messageboards at CARM, which seem designed to make angry atheists angrier. My other main contact with religion was Pharyngula and gay news blogs, which do tend to highlight the worst aspects. (Box Turtle Bulletin has religious writers, and is pretty good at talking about those religions which support human rights.) Too often, I've seen people angrily trying to make the world less fair, less equal, less pleasant, and simultaneously claiming to be the most moral people around. That's not morality as I understand it, but it is morality to far too many religious people.
More recently, I've rediscovered slacktivist (and, now, The Slacktiverse), and I'm working to reacquaint myself with the better side of religion. I've never forgotten it exists, but it easy to focus on the worse side. It makes more noise. I do try to be fair to religious people, but I do see where Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris are coming from. (Have you read Letter to a Christian Nation?)
So, I'm trying to move into a better understanding of the reality of what religion is for many people, while at the same time respecting my own right to be angry at the religious attacks on human rights and to be dismissive of shoddy arguments and baldly stated claims.
And this seems to be a good place to add that the Courtier's Reply above is noted and dismissed.
TRiG.
TRiG, whew! You cover a lot of territory. I know very little about Jehovah's Witnesses. I don't engage with them when they come to my door, perhaps because of my bad experiences with Mormons with whom I have engaged, and I find that they do not listen well, and they will be satisfied with nothing less than conversion to Mormonism. I finally had to be quite firm to keep them from coming back with the same old, same old.
ReplyDeleteWith the Witnesses, I am polite; I accept their literature, but I do not engage. Perhaps I should, but after what you say, I probably will continue my present policy.
CARM seems focused on highlighting and rooting out heresies and not at all my kind of place. My central focus is on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ in the Gospels.
Too often, I've seen people angrily trying to make the world less fair, less equal, less pleasant, and simultaneously claiming to be the most moral people around. That's not morality as I understand it, but it is morality to far too many religious people.
I see the people you describe, TRiG, and it makes me sad that folks who call themselves Christians act in ways that are hurtful and promote policies of inequality and injustice. But I say to you and to the angry atheists, "Please! Do not paint us all with the same brush!"
There are atheists, and there are atheists. My atheist friend IT distinguishes atheists from anti-theists. It seems that angry groups of Christians and angry groups of atheists will not be satisfied with tolerant co-existence and civil discussion.
I agree that angry and intolerant Christians who try to force their ways on all of us make more noise than the rest of us, and I'm not sure how to effectively counter the view that Christians are all the same.
I do what I can here on my blog to be a Christian voice for inclusion, justice, and equality and to demonstrate that at least some of us are respectful of differing views. I don't know what else I can do.