"The opposite of courage in our society is not cowardice, it is conformity."
Rollo May
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Hitchens Ambivalence
I find it hard to view Christopher Hitchens death as tragic. It is sad when any fellow human being dies before they are old and decrepit. However, he did not exactly live a healthy lifestyle. I don't think I ever saw him without a cigarette and he admitted to drinking to excess. I also think he was highly over-rated in terms of both his writing and his speaking ability. Of all the so called New Atheist he was by far the weakest intellectually. I was somewhat fascinated by him. I started reading his work in High School.
I got the impression early on that people who ended up taking a liking to him did so due to style rather than any particular talent. My own initial impression of him was that he was booze fueled windbag. Of the books, articles, and columns I read of his over the years only one impressed me, The Trial of Henry Kissinger. It was the only thing he ever wrote that was actually good from start to finish. Far too often he either went off on tangents or failed to support whatever point he was trying to make. Many atheists seemed to be awed by God Is Not Great. I was a little disappointed. I probably would have been very upset had I not already had low expectations. There was nothing in it that other had not already written about and written better.
It is sad that he died but I did not think much of him while he was alive and see no reason to pretend otherwise now that he is dead. Praise for him has already spread throughout the blogosphere and I have no doubt he be eulogized glowingly on any number of websites and podcasts over the next week or two. Having been a prominent atheist figure I understand that. I just wish people had more perspective. He stood up for atheists and I respected him for that. But he was not nearly as great as he is now being made out to be.
I have to thank PZ Meyers for at least acknowledging that Hitchens had his flaws in one of his Pharyngula posts, The dark side of Hitchens.
I got the impression early on that people who ended up taking a liking to him did so due to style rather than any particular talent. My own initial impression of him was that he was booze fueled windbag. Of the books, articles, and columns I read of his over the years only one impressed me, The Trial of Henry Kissinger. It was the only thing he ever wrote that was actually good from start to finish. Far too often he either went off on tangents or failed to support whatever point he was trying to make. Many atheists seemed to be awed by God Is Not Great. I was a little disappointed. I probably would have been very upset had I not already had low expectations. There was nothing in it that other had not already written about and written better.
It is sad that he died but I did not think much of him while he was alive and see no reason to pretend otherwise now that he is dead. Praise for him has already spread throughout the blogosphere and I have no doubt he be eulogized glowingly on any number of websites and podcasts over the next week or two. Having been a prominent atheist figure I understand that. I just wish people had more perspective. He stood up for atheists and I respected him for that. But he was not nearly as great as he is now being made out to be.
I have to thank PZ Meyers for at least acknowledging that Hitchens had his flaws in one of his Pharyngula posts, The dark side of Hitchens.
Christ?mass ConFusion
It never ceases to amaze me how clueless and credulous the average Christian can be. The holiday season inevitably leads to a heavy dose of all sorts of ridiculous pieces on Christmas and Jesus. All of them contain massive amounts of sentimentalized delusions. Most scriptural scholars, many are themselves believers, will freely admit that the odds of Christ having been born in December is virtually zero let alone being born specifically on the 25th. Nearly every aspect of Christmas has its origin outside Christianity. Yet, every December we are deluged with the same types of stories that inevitably lead to various groups of Christians whining about either not having the season go the way they want or bemoaning the various hassles that they themselves have created.
If you want to celebrate the "birth of Christ" and forgo Santa and the "secular" intruders on the season, go ahead. No one is stopping you. If you don't want to shop, bake, clean, or have company, don't. No one is making you do those things. And if you want to recount for the zillionth time the nativity story, go ahead. Don't assume, however, that the rest of us are interested or have to show any care for it.
And for the record, fighting over the true nature of Christ and the details of his life is just plain stupid. He never actually existed. You can make up whatever you want. You can find a passage in the New Testament to support just about anything since it is alternately vague, contradictory, and incoherent. So when someone says Christ was ______, just nod and grin. You are both right and wrong. Once again, Christ is a myth. Get over it.
PS
It is also rather ironic that both camps of whiners fail to see that, just maybe, if they spent more time enjoying the Holiday Season festivities with their loved ones and less time bitching they might end up living the ideals they claim the season is about. Personally, I don't care if they want to treat it as some type of metaphysical superstition laden birthday party. For me it is all about spending time with family and friends. It would be nice, however, if the various disgruntled Christians complaining about the season as it is would take a long look in the mirror and shut the fuck up.
If you want to celebrate the "birth of Christ" and forgo Santa and the "secular" intruders on the season, go ahead. No one is stopping you. If you don't want to shop, bake, clean, or have company, don't. No one is making you do those things. And if you want to recount for the zillionth time the nativity story, go ahead. Don't assume, however, that the rest of us are interested or have to show any care for it.
And for the record, fighting over the true nature of Christ and the details of his life is just plain stupid. He never actually existed. You can make up whatever you want. You can find a passage in the New Testament to support just about anything since it is alternately vague, contradictory, and incoherent. So when someone says Christ was ______, just nod and grin. You are both right and wrong. Once again, Christ is a myth. Get over it.
PS
It is also rather ironic that both camps of whiners fail to see that, just maybe, if they spent more time enjoying the Holiday Season festivities with their loved ones and less time bitching they might end up living the ideals they claim the season is about. Personally, I don't care if they want to treat it as some type of metaphysical superstition laden birthday party. For me it is all about spending time with family and friends. It would be nice, however, if the various disgruntled Christians complaining about the season as it is would take a long look in the mirror and shut the fuck up.
A Question of Civil Rights?
I agree with much of what Eboo Patel says in his recent post "Attacking Mitt Romney, Attacking Faith" but with a few caveats. I firmly believe that everyone has a right to believe whatever they choose, which includes religious ideas. However, Patel seems to be confusing the idea of respecting an individual's rights with respecting the ideas that individual subscribes to. There is a huge difference. I can easily agree that you have a right to believe in faeries but that doesn't mean I am compelled to accept or tolerate that idea. In fact, it's my right to think you are complete moron for believing such nonsense.
Patel also makes an incredibly idiotic comparison when he states, "...our society has, again for the most part, recognized that counting someone's race against her in a political election is an act prejudice, and it's bad. So why is counting someone's religion against him any less an act of prejudice?" Why? You do not choose your gender (at least not till you are a legal adult) or ethnicity. Gender and ethnicity also do not come with a set of beliefs. Simply being a male Caucasian does not mean I have to believe x, y, or z. You choose a religion. Whether you end up following all the doctrines or practices is a separate matter but by choosing the specific religion you are at the least publicly endorsing those ideas and behaviors.
He is right that no one should be denied rights because of the faith they have chosen but that is not what is happening with Romney or any other politician who publicly proclaims, and rather loudly, their particular religious beliefs. I see no reason to apologize for thinking that Romney is not qualified to run the country I live in because among other things he is a practicing Mormon. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who thinks their underwear (look it up) is magical is too fucking ignorant and stupid to run a country. I don't really care what the source of such a ridiculous notion is. If you endorse a system of beliefs that contains a huge amount of ludicrous ideas I'm going to assume you are an intellectual cripple incapable of making important policy decisions. I fail to see that as being a civil rights infringement. If there is evidence that clearly demonstrated that those ideas are sound I'll be happy to apologize and reconsider my own position. Till that time I'm going to reserve my right to think that Romney is an incompetent delusion ass.
Patel also makes an incredibly idiotic comparison when he states, "...our society has, again for the most part, recognized that counting someone's race against her in a political election is an act prejudice, and it's bad. So why is counting someone's religion against him any less an act of prejudice?" Why? You do not choose your gender (at least not till you are a legal adult) or ethnicity. Gender and ethnicity also do not come with a set of beliefs. Simply being a male Caucasian does not mean I have to believe x, y, or z. You choose a religion. Whether you end up following all the doctrines or practices is a separate matter but by choosing the specific religion you are at the least publicly endorsing those ideas and behaviors.
He is right that no one should be denied rights because of the faith they have chosen but that is not what is happening with Romney or any other politician who publicly proclaims, and rather loudly, their particular religious beliefs. I see no reason to apologize for thinking that Romney is not qualified to run the country I live in because among other things he is a practicing Mormon. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who thinks their underwear (look it up) is magical is too fucking ignorant and stupid to run a country. I don't really care what the source of such a ridiculous notion is. If you endorse a system of beliefs that contains a huge amount of ludicrous ideas I'm going to assume you are an intellectual cripple incapable of making important policy decisions. I fail to see that as being a civil rights infringement. If there is evidence that clearly demonstrated that those ideas are sound I'll be happy to apologize and reconsider my own position. Till that time I'm going to reserve my right to think that Romney is an incompetent delusion ass.
Phil Zuckerman Interview
Recently on Culture Shocks Barry Lyn Interviewed Phil Zuckerman. It was a very interesting interview that I would recommend listening to highly. There were a number of questions and points I thought should have been elaborated on but in a set time frame it is impossible to cover everything.
One point I would have loved to have added to involved the question of whether the belief in God has to include the idea of perfection. It does not. However, removing perfection as a trait of God does change quite a bit. Many theists seem to think removing this trait solves a lot of inconsistencies and contradictions. It might but it also opens up a whole other set. It, among other things, opens the door to polytheism. If God is perfect and therefore all powerful there can be no other source of power. This eliminates the possibility of other gods. If God is not perfect then God is not all powerful which means there is no reason not believe other gods are not possible. After all, there is no other species that is limited to a single specimen. It also leaves open the implication that the Christian god is not eternal, is not the source of all things, and can be supplanted by another being. All points that Christian theology, regardless of sect/denomination, all vehemently deny. Basically, if theists want their god to be God, the one true god, then perfection is required. Back to square one and all its absurdities.
One point I would have loved to have added to involved the question of whether the belief in God has to include the idea of perfection. It does not. However, removing perfection as a trait of God does change quite a bit. Many theists seem to think removing this trait solves a lot of inconsistencies and contradictions. It might but it also opens up a whole other set. It, among other things, opens the door to polytheism. If God is perfect and therefore all powerful there can be no other source of power. This eliminates the possibility of other gods. If God is not perfect then God is not all powerful which means there is no reason not believe other gods are not possible. After all, there is no other species that is limited to a single specimen. It also leaves open the implication that the Christian god is not eternal, is not the source of all things, and can be supplanted by another being. All points that Christian theology, regardless of sect/denomination, all vehemently deny. Basically, if theists want their god to be God, the one true god, then perfection is required. Back to square one and all its absurdities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)