babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
the eternal atheism /religion thread
March 27, 2008 - 5:54am
waiting for Godot
I do not share the views of Dawkins et al that religion is the root of all evil. In saying so, he and others not only threaten freedom of conscience, but more importantly, whitewash the role of imperialism, capitalism, patriarchy, and other structural ills which frequently use and rely upon religion for their perpetuation, but are not grounded in religion.
Religion is often an accomplice, but it is not the cause of the world's ills.
As I have said, many times, religion as a private belief is of no concern to society, and the freedom to believe and practise is and must be guaranteed in any democracy. Likewise, the freedom not to believe and to advocate against it. Having said that, in a democracy, public institutions, education, etc. must be strictly secular. Religion may be studied like other human phenomena, but it must never be advocated, nor can citizens, youth etc. be subject to any civil divisions whatsoever on the basis of their faith or lack of such.
So where is our disagreement, Catchfire? Will you split with me (like one other babbler) on political aims because of my feelings about religion? Is it ironic that that other babbler condemns me to the other side of the political trench because of my views on religion, while I still welcome and want to unite with him? Or is it merely an indication that religion has always bred intolerance and still does so?
[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]
This has promise to best another 1,000+ meta-thread discourse with religion at the centre.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To this day, any serious study of religion needs to address at least two key questions:
1) finding the real roots of one or another religious belief or ritual as one of the main goals in studying the history of religion;
2) uncovering how religion has influences and continues to influence art, knowledge, morals, law, social affairs, economics and politics.
Perhaps a fair criticism of the "new" atheists is that there isn't enough effort in regard to these two questions. I have to admit, however, that I haven't read as much of the "new" atheists as I would like and therefore could simply be missing efforts in this direction.
I realize that, M. Spector, but would you not agree that people like Harris and Hitchens tend to veer to Islamophobia, besides (most glaringly in Hitchens' case) blaming Islam rather than imperialism for various critical situations in the world?
I actually had trouble reading "The End of Faith" because of the excessive concentration on Islam.
I couldn't finish the Harris book.
I believe the current "boom" in atheist publishing is a consequence of the popular myth that Islam was to blame for 9/11.
.
[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: Geneva ]
We seem to have made it a long way as a species in spite of the tendency to do so.
But that is not the same thing as opting not to use electricity on Saturday, is it? We all have a way of speaking with ourselves, of engaging with the metaphysical. Some people pray, some meditate, some go on hikes, some listen to Aerosmith. In that sense, religion is a metaphysical language, a set of codes for communicating with the self, with immanence. This is surely holy, but what do you want to say about it? There's nothing there to say or not say. It simply is.
If you ridicule the manner in which people express their immanence, you are necessarily hypocritical. Because you have your own metaphysical language that is equally vulnerable.
Evidently in liu of a substantive arguement that undermines the whole thesis you feel the need to assert the superiority of your own chosen creed by smug derrision which you authorize by appeals to the scientific in detail, when compared to the ignorance of many believing people. This is no more than what a foolish bully does when he substantiates his own self worth by triping up a blind person walking down the street.
[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
No this is not about freedom of speech. This is about various friends and allies asking you to be more civil in your tone, and you rejecting that appeal.
When I asked that you not compare some believers to "pond scum" I was rewarded with a ridiculous exchange of idiotic barf smilies. Sure once and while an off-the-cuff expression, especially when directed at anti-evolutionists, is fine with me but a campaign of ridicule hardly qualifies as debate.
[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Any response to the comments I've made in this thread?
My second post is directed at your assertion that I am being derrisive, and that this derrision is unwarranted. This derrision is located in the greater dialogue that Spector re-introduced into this thread.
There is nothing in your first post that is particularly offensive, I think. It is perfectly legitimate. If your appeal to me to turn over a new leaf is also a reconsideration of the approach you have been taking toward this subject as of late, then I certainly would oblige.
But is it such a reconsideration?
[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
But is it such a reconsideration?
ETA: Sorry, you edited after I replied. If you would like me to retract my attacks on any individual babbler, consider them all retracted. If you want me to change my views on religion, don't hold your breath. If this means we can't engage in civilized discussion, then that's your call, not mine.
But seeing as it is a particularly contentious issue, especially given the greater context of the vilification of one religious group specifically by very powerful forces, both secular and religious, I am asking that such discussion go forward with more sensitivity to the personal feelings and attachements that some people find important as part of the makeup of their personal identity.
My feelings get hurt almost every day by crap that gets posted on babble - political viewpoints that challenge some of the core beliefs that make up a large part of my personal identity. I get no protection from that, nor do I ask for any. Why should religious beliefs be accorded any greater deference?
I have a question for "those more militant than me"; among the books by the "new" atheists, has anyone come across an author "finding the real roots of one or another religious belief or ritual" that was new to them or of general interest? (For example, the practice of baptizing in water precedes Christian practice and has a specific meaning and/or origin ... )
Perhaps so Spector. But you are not, as far as I can tell, part of a an identifiable minority that is directly under attack, being harassed by various police forces, arrested and detained on security certificates and vilified in the press on a daily basis. Or perhaps you would like to offer me up a list of so-called "evangelical rationalist" doing time at the tax-payers expense.
For you this is relatively safe intellectual exercise, but for Muslim people saying the wrong thing on the internet, can in fact, and has been be part of "evidence" collected as part of establishing their "terrorist" sympathies, if not directly used as an example of organizing illegal conspiracies.
In comparison your complaint is supercilious and reeks of assumed privilege. Even as an intellectual excersize this is certainly not a level playing field.
[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Millions of my comrades have been persecuted and exterminated for their beliefs.
You have no right to tell me how sensitive I'm entitled to be about the things I believe in.
Take your level playing field and shove it up your ass.
In fact, communists are rather being politcally rehabilitated for use as a tool against the new enemy: Islam.
One of the fascinating things about privilege is that it often expressess itself as an outraged cry against opression, when the fundamental right of that privilege is questioned, or when the advantage that privilege provides is pointed out. Again, name the communists languishing in jail in this country, today, because they are communists.
PS: Sorry to hurt your "feelings."
[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
You're quite mistaken about that.
Communist Youth Union Dissolved by Czech State
Here's the latest:
Communist Youth lose appeal.
Communists are illegal in the Czech Republic. How's them apples?
more details here ...
The Czech Communists were instrumental in stopping the establishment of yet another US military base. Payback? Probably. OTOH, the tiny Communist Party in Canada isn't worth making illegal. Let them defy the odds and get bigger, then it's a different story ...
[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]
[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
In any case, trivializing anti-communism, of the new variety or of the old variety, in no way helps your point that Muslims are specially victimized in today's circumstances.
Admittedly, this isn't direct state repression. But it happens nevertheless. In Canada. Today.
Absolutely it does when communists are trivializing the direct threat to Muslim people posed by the state security aparatus and powerful media institutions that manage public opinion.
I hate to say it, and I don't mean to hurt Spectors feelings any more than is necessary, but he and his creed simply do not pose a real or percieved threat to status quo. Perhaps if communists were to more actively engage the political discourse toward the end of protecting marginalized people, rather than shunning them and denigrating their beliefs, they might be more relevant than they are.
As it is, "some comrades", seem intent on maintaining their position of irrelevant safety.
[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]