Even if ignorance really isn't bliss it certainly provides comfort and cover for many individuals, especially theists. I came across a letter to the editor last week that I found somewhat interesting. The first read through of Miss Fogg's "Defense of Christians doesn’t mean ‘special rights’(Letter)" seems relatively naive and harmless but if you reread it you may notice it is an example of an attitude that is highly corrosive. She finds the need to defend an individual who quite frankly doesn't need defending. He isn't actually being attacked. i couldn't even find any examples of people who are supposedly attacking "the April 23 opinion of columnist, Don Roberts."
Miss Fogg seems to have drank the cool-aid that willfully ignorant self-righteous assholes like Roberts have been doling out for years. Yes, that would be an attack on Roberts opinions and his character. Unlike Roberts I can point out why he deserves both criticism and derision. He represents a variety of mean spirited myths and stereotypes. He also is a very dishonest self centered individual who does wish to see the right of others stripped away. Despite lying to herself about Roberts not claiming "special rights" for Christians, Fogg fails to see all the propagandist bullshit Roberts' "In defense of Christianity - Maine legislators should take note: Christians have rights, too" contains. Just start with the title. Who is challenging the actual rights of Christians? Why would Maine's legislators, who are predominantly Christian, fail to protect their own rights?
Roberts sets the tone of his opinion piece very clearly in the first paragraph:
"The world is experiencing a war against Christianity. Our nation,
founded on Judeo-Christian principles, faces the greatest challenge to
our existence in modern times. Amazingly, our enemy, the radical Islamic
terrorist movement, is underestimated at the highest levels of American
government."
The religious right loves to use the symbols and language of warfare. I'd also point out that he is pushing the conservative, and false, notion that the US was founded to be a "Christian Nation." I have previously commented on this bogus premise.* Roberts is the one being belligerent and is most certainly trying to claim "special" status for Christianity. The sad truth is that any group you can identify has been, and in many instance are still being, abused, persecuted, and even killed somewhere in the world. It isn't right. It should be stopped. That is not what he's trying to bring attention to. He doesn't give a shit about all the other groups. I seriously doubt he is all that concerned about all Christians either. I don't get the impression from his writings that he has any problem persecuting "Christians" who don't conform to his favored version of the faith.
Sorry, Miss Fogg but you are blinded by your own biases. Roberts is not the champion you seem to think he is.
*Conflation Nation (4-12-15)
http://www.atheismith.blogspot.com/2015/04/conflation-nation.html
Showing posts with label Biases. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Biases. Show all posts
Sunday, May 10, 2015
Sunday, April 12, 2015
Conflation Nation
To be honest, I'm not sure if John Reynolds is being intentionally deceitful or if he is just clueless. In either case his Eidos blog post on Patheos, "Did America become a Christian nation in the Fifties?", relies heavily on conflating two very different meanings for the term "Christian nation." In the very first sentence of this piece he states:
"My newsfeed has two kinds of common historically inaccurate stories. Members of my own Faith often exaggerate the Christian nature of the American Founding and experience while secularists keep writing that America was never a Christian nation."
I don't know what sources he uses but given that I read voraciously I have to assume he is either reading the most esoteric and extreme outlets possible or he is being disingenuous. Virtually every secularist, liberal, and atheist I know does refute the notion that our country was founded expressly on "Christian" values and doctrines. They do not deny that the majority of Americans at the time, including the "Founding Fathers", were themselves Christian. Those are two quite different things.
Even though Reynolds makes a few valid points in the piece most of it is degraded by this false premise that everyone using the term "Christian nation" is talking about the same thing. I got the impression that this was at least partially intentional. It seemed like he wanted to be able to criticize secularists without seeming unreasonable, petty, or preachy. Instead, I found him to be misleading and ignorant. I'm pretty sure that was not his goal but since he cannot make his case without logical fallacies or outright falsehoods it is hard not to view him in such a way.
"My newsfeed has two kinds of common historically inaccurate stories. Members of my own Faith often exaggerate the Christian nature of the American Founding and experience while secularists keep writing that America was never a Christian nation."
I don't know what sources he uses but given that I read voraciously I have to assume he is either reading the most esoteric and extreme outlets possible or he is being disingenuous. Virtually every secularist, liberal, and atheist I know does refute the notion that our country was founded expressly on "Christian" values and doctrines. They do not deny that the majority of Americans at the time, including the "Founding Fathers", were themselves Christian. Those are two quite different things.
Even though Reynolds makes a few valid points in the piece most of it is degraded by this false premise that everyone using the term "Christian nation" is talking about the same thing. I got the impression that this was at least partially intentional. It seemed like he wanted to be able to criticize secularists without seeming unreasonable, petty, or preachy. Instead, I found him to be misleading and ignorant. I'm pretty sure that was not his goal but since he cannot make his case without logical fallacies or outright falsehoods it is hard not to view him in such a way.
Sunday, February 9, 2014
There is no "inner atheist"
Jonathan Merritt recently posted on his Faith and Culture blog (at Religious News Service) an interview with a man named Daniel Taylor. I don't know much about Taylor and have little reason to learn much about him based on this interview. He seems to think that by dressing up his own biases and willful ignorance in all sorts of made up jargon he can pass himself off as a thoughtful well intention individual. My impression is that he is little more than a self-righteous bigot.
Merritt initially describes Taylor as a "Christian Humanist." I actually do not take issue with this despite the attitude Merritt himself seems to take. In a few places it is implied that the term maybe controversial and even contradictory. I can see a few reasons why some may see it that way but I don't think that would be an automatic response. However, Taylor definitely has serious failings when it comes to the labels he employs. He tries claiming that he supports skepticism as a way to explore faith. I would encourage such an approach to faith. Sadly, that is not what he is really talking about. Taylor makes it clear from the start that he doesn't even have a basic understanding of skepticism. His response to the post's second question reveals this quite nicely.
"RNS: You grab readers with the seemingly contradictory idea of a “skeptical believer.” What does this mean?
DT: A skeptic is one with a habitual resistance to accepting truth claims—you could say a knee-jerk doubter, though skeptics like to think of themselves as people who look before they leap. A believer is one who accepts something as real or true or worthy of affirmation, often without proof. Sometimes skeptic and believer go together. I use the term “skeptical believer” to refer to Christians who want to believe the claims of faith but whose minds and will are constantly raising objections."
Right off he implies that "truth claims" should simply be accepted. That is the antithesis of skepticism. Also, a "skeptic" actively tries to avoid "knee-jerk" responses to anything. The whole idea is that if a claim is made then the claimant should have support for their claim. You do not automatically assume extraordinary claims are either true or untrue until it is examined and a body of evidence is established from which you can determine whether it is true or not. Another red flag to anyone familiar with skepticism comes from his statement about those "who want to believe." What you want to believe is also a concern for skeptics. We actively try to separate what we want from any attempt at determining what evidence says reality actually is. Basically, this guy hasn't a fucking clue what skepticism is. He certainly does not apply it to his own opinions.
His use of "inner atheist" is also flat-out self-deluded crap.
"RNS: What’s an “inner atheist,” and why do you maintain that having one is compatible with a life of faith?
DT: My “inner atheist” is that part of me that wants to play it safe (though in reality it’s not safe at all) by forestalling all commitments until one has proof or certainty. He gets especially jumpy about committing to ultimate things, which he rightly argues can’t be proven (though lots of evidence can be marshalled, a different thing)."
What he is actually referring to is doubt. Lots of theist have doubts. Lots of non-theists have doubts. There is nothing wrong with having doubts. Personally, I see it as a key trait that separates self-righteous willfully ignorant assholes like Taylor from decent thoughtful human beings. The interview never gets any better. He constantly mangles all sorts of terms and concepts. Most of what he claims to be a proponent of he undermines almost immediately. He constantly states or implies numerous beliefs and opinions as if they are foregone conclusions. I found very little in the interview that even remotely connects to humanism, skepticism, or atheism despite his use of these terms.
Merritt initially describes Taylor as a "Christian Humanist." I actually do not take issue with this despite the attitude Merritt himself seems to take. In a few places it is implied that the term maybe controversial and even contradictory. I can see a few reasons why some may see it that way but I don't think that would be an automatic response. However, Taylor definitely has serious failings when it comes to the labels he employs. He tries claiming that he supports skepticism as a way to explore faith. I would encourage such an approach to faith. Sadly, that is not what he is really talking about. Taylor makes it clear from the start that he doesn't even have a basic understanding of skepticism. His response to the post's second question reveals this quite nicely.
"RNS: You grab readers with the seemingly contradictory idea of a “skeptical believer.” What does this mean?
DT: A skeptic is one with a habitual resistance to accepting truth claims—you could say a knee-jerk doubter, though skeptics like to think of themselves as people who look before they leap. A believer is one who accepts something as real or true or worthy of affirmation, often without proof. Sometimes skeptic and believer go together. I use the term “skeptical believer” to refer to Christians who want to believe the claims of faith but whose minds and will are constantly raising objections."
Right off he implies that "truth claims" should simply be accepted. That is the antithesis of skepticism. Also, a "skeptic" actively tries to avoid "knee-jerk" responses to anything. The whole idea is that if a claim is made then the claimant should have support for their claim. You do not automatically assume extraordinary claims are either true or untrue until it is examined and a body of evidence is established from which you can determine whether it is true or not. Another red flag to anyone familiar with skepticism comes from his statement about those "who want to believe." What you want to believe is also a concern for skeptics. We actively try to separate what we want from any attempt at determining what evidence says reality actually is. Basically, this guy hasn't a fucking clue what skepticism is. He certainly does not apply it to his own opinions.
His use of "inner atheist" is also flat-out self-deluded crap.
"RNS: What’s an “inner atheist,” and why do you maintain that having one is compatible with a life of faith?
DT: My “inner atheist” is that part of me that wants to play it safe (though in reality it’s not safe at all) by forestalling all commitments until one has proof or certainty. He gets especially jumpy about committing to ultimate things, which he rightly argues can’t be proven (though lots of evidence can be marshalled, a different thing)."
What he is actually referring to is doubt. Lots of theist have doubts. Lots of non-theists have doubts. There is nothing wrong with having doubts. Personally, I see it as a key trait that separates self-righteous willfully ignorant assholes like Taylor from decent thoughtful human beings. The interview never gets any better. He constantly mangles all sorts of terms and concepts. Most of what he claims to be a proponent of he undermines almost immediately. He constantly states or implies numerous beliefs and opinions as if they are foregone conclusions. I found very little in the interview that even remotely connects to humanism, skepticism, or atheism despite his use of these terms.
Sunday, December 29, 2013
Stedman is at it again
Chris "Faitheist" Stedman has once again lodged his head straight up his own ass. Apparently, the very notion that some atheists want to let others know that Christmas doesn't have to always be celebrated for religious reasons is an act of "war". It doesn't matter that people have held celebrations during this season long before Christianity came into existence. Pointing out such socio-cultural/historical facts makes atheists the bad guys. Congratulations you fucking pinhead, you have just successfully reinforced a number of myths and stereotypes about atheists.
Unfortunately, it is not simply a matter of Stedman being an ignorant fool, which in many instances he is, but rather about deep seated biases. In his Decemeber 21st CNN Belief Blog post "Why atheists should quit the 'War on Christmas’" he states among other things:
"The American Atheists maintain that their latest entry in the annual “War on Christmas” saga is a message to other atheists that they are not alone...Which raises the question: If the goal truly is to reach isolated atheists, why does the advertisement read as a dig at Christians? A better billboard for American Atheists’s stated aim might read: 'Don’t celebrate Christmas? You’re not alone.'”
He knows the reasons given for such campaigns but refuses to accept them. Why? He seems to blindly accept the old canard that atheist are by their nature immoral and untrustworthy. He also seems to be operating on various double-standards. Most biblical scholars, many of them believers, long ago conceded that December 25th is not anywhere near the birthday of Jesus. So how can any literate intelligent theist continue to insist that the season belongs solely to them? Yet, Stedman seems to be championing the incredibly arrogant and bigoted view that if you don't celebrate the way an ever shrinking segment of Christians insist on then you shouldn't celebrate anything. And even if a fraction of the shit he's spewing has any truth to it why should atheist be viewed as the main protagonists?
Like usual Stedman hasn't got a fucking clue what he's talking about.
Unfortunately, it is not simply a matter of Stedman being an ignorant fool, which in many instances he is, but rather about deep seated biases. In his Decemeber 21st CNN Belief Blog post "Why atheists should quit the 'War on Christmas’" he states among other things:
"The American Atheists maintain that their latest entry in the annual “War on Christmas” saga is a message to other atheists that they are not alone...Which raises the question: If the goal truly is to reach isolated atheists, why does the advertisement read as a dig at Christians? A better billboard for American Atheists’s stated aim might read: 'Don’t celebrate Christmas? You’re not alone.'”
He knows the reasons given for such campaigns but refuses to accept them. Why? He seems to blindly accept the old canard that atheist are by their nature immoral and untrustworthy. He also seems to be operating on various double-standards. Most biblical scholars, many of them believers, long ago conceded that December 25th is not anywhere near the birthday of Jesus. So how can any literate intelligent theist continue to insist that the season belongs solely to them? Yet, Stedman seems to be championing the incredibly arrogant and bigoted view that if you don't celebrate the way an ever shrinking segment of Christians insist on then you shouldn't celebrate anything. And even if a fraction of the shit he's spewing has any truth to it why should atheist be viewed as the main protagonists?
Like usual Stedman hasn't got a fucking clue what he's talking about.
Fragments without Philosophy or Substance
"Philosophical Fragments" is one of handful of blogs on Patheos that I read on a fairly regular basis and have always found the title a bit misleading. Very few of the pieces I have come across involve any deep thinking.
A recent piece, "The Good of Believing In God", provides an excellent example of what a misnomer the blog is. Johnny Moore's December 15th piece starts with this little gem, "Atheism might be in vogue, but it — for sure — hasn’t helped history as much as Christianity. Believing in God is not only among the most reasonable ideas in history; it is among its most helpful."
Only two sentences in and the piece is already off to rather pathetic start. Even if atheism could be said to be "in vogue" why would it matter? The idea is pretty absurd given that atheists are still considered the most disliked and distrusted minority in the US and the media never fails to promote any number of myths and stereotypes about atheists. It is also rather ridiculous to insist how history might have played out. There is no way to know such a thing. As a thought experiment such speculations can prove valuable but the rest of the piece makes it clear that is not what Moore is doing. He also never backs up his rather definitive statement about the God concept being reasonable or helpful. It is a highly debatable supposition with evidence being available on both sides.
So what is his point? I have no idea why he bothered with this beyond taking an opportunity to attack atheists. Another revealing sentence comes at the start of his third paragraph. "Although atheists might concede that there is no transcendent meaning to life, they are more than willing to take advantage of modern medical know-how to maintain their meaningless existence for as long as possible." Did you catch his rather disingenuous slight-of-hand? If an atheist doesn't agree that there is a one-size-fits-all universal meaning of life (i.e. God) then such an atheist can't possible find any meaning in life at all. The implication is, of course, that we are hypocrits simply because we don't fall for his childish conflation. His reasoning never gets any better.
There are plenty of fragments provided. Nearly all are in essence logical fallacies. In a rather short space Moore relies on, among others, double-standards, misrepresentations, and special pleadings.
A recent piece, "The Good of Believing In God", provides an excellent example of what a misnomer the blog is. Johnny Moore's December 15th piece starts with this little gem, "Atheism might be in vogue, but it — for sure — hasn’t helped history as much as Christianity. Believing in God is not only among the most reasonable ideas in history; it is among its most helpful."
Only two sentences in and the piece is already off to rather pathetic start. Even if atheism could be said to be "in vogue" why would it matter? The idea is pretty absurd given that atheists are still considered the most disliked and distrusted minority in the US and the media never fails to promote any number of myths and stereotypes about atheists. It is also rather ridiculous to insist how history might have played out. There is no way to know such a thing. As a thought experiment such speculations can prove valuable but the rest of the piece makes it clear that is not what Moore is doing. He also never backs up his rather definitive statement about the God concept being reasonable or helpful. It is a highly debatable supposition with evidence being available on both sides.
So what is his point? I have no idea why he bothered with this beyond taking an opportunity to attack atheists. Another revealing sentence comes at the start of his third paragraph. "Although atheists might concede that there is no transcendent meaning to life, they are more than willing to take advantage of modern medical know-how to maintain their meaningless existence for as long as possible." Did you catch his rather disingenuous slight-of-hand? If an atheist doesn't agree that there is a one-size-fits-all universal meaning of life (i.e. God) then such an atheist can't possible find any meaning in life at all. The implication is, of course, that we are hypocrits simply because we don't fall for his childish conflation. His reasoning never gets any better.
There are plenty of fragments provided. Nearly all are in essence logical fallacies. In a rather short space Moore relies on, among others, double-standards, misrepresentations, and special pleadings.
Sunday, October 13, 2013
"God's will" is our will
Timothy Dalrymple's recent Philosophical Fragments post is loaded with not only fragments but lots of philosophical holes. "Mistaking God's Will for Our Own" has numerous problems in its logic. He fails at establishing a basic premise to start with. How can any human or group of humans even come close to determining what God's will is? He himself notes that we are imperfect while God is perfect but fails to take that notion to the next logical step. We can't know "God's will." In practice God's will has to be our will. It can never be anything more than our own biases and interpretations that creates this "will." So form start to finish God's will is our will. If that is a mistake then it is an innate mistake that cannot be otherwise.
This, of course, only matters if you fail to see the huge assumption underlying the whole argument: God exists. No one has yet provided any proof that God actually exists. Basically God is a human fabrication and therefore leads to the same conclusion anyway. God's will is our will. Religious people can dress it up in any number of arguments they want but the result is the same. Theists choose to believe in God just like they choose the type of God they prefer and the "religious experience" they want. God and religion are a convenient set of ideas that can be used to reinforce and justify what individuals and groups want to be true whether they are or not.
This, of course, only matters if you fail to see the huge assumption underlying the whole argument: God exists. No one has yet provided any proof that God actually exists. Basically God is a human fabrication and therefore leads to the same conclusion anyway. God's will is our will. Religious people can dress it up in any number of arguments they want but the result is the same. Theists choose to believe in God just like they choose the type of God they prefer and the "religious experience" they want. God and religion are a convenient set of ideas that can be used to reinforce and justify what individuals and groups want to be true whether they are or not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)