The "ism" that never was

Even once you set aside the fact that atheism isn't actually an "ism" at all given that is defined by the lack of a specific type of belief system, headlines like "Is the New Atheism Dead?" are idiotic. Even as a rhetorical device it is incredibly ignorant and stupid. Ideas/concepts never really die since they never completely go away. Then, of course, there is the problem with the term "New Atheism." It never actually meant anything other than another round of slurs and misrepresentations of atheists. The only thing "new" in the past few decades has been a slightly higher level of willingness in the mainstream media to cover and publish atheists. In the past if an atheist wanted to publish a book on atheism they had to go to the smaller presses. Even then it was not always easy to get into print. The article also takes a funny approach to the latest from Pew. It parrots some of the talking points that have shown up elsewhere about America losing faith yet notes the discrepancy between a growing lack of specific religious affiliation and a consistence of religious beliefs. The author doesn't seem to have a direction yet insists on rambling on.

A bit late, and far too short

It is nice to see at least a few mainstream outlets acknowledge perceptions of the current Pope are inaccurate even if those pieces tend to be rather shallow and weak. One of the few recent articles to feebly point out this disconnect from reality came from Time in the form of "The Top 4 Misconceptions About Pope Francis." In comparison to all the misconceptions surrounding Francis this really is pathetic. If it were just a starting point for a series of short pieces on the myths surrounding the current Pope it might work well as a gentle way to broach the subject but I doubt Time will follow it up with anything even remotely resembling a substantial analysis. The author, a liberal leaning Catholic activist, never bothers to point out that the Pope has not actually even hinted at let alone attempted to change a single Catholic doctrine. The few practices he's made minor adjustments to are of little to no consequence and are easily ignored and/or over-ridden by local clergy. Sadly, this does not seem to be accidental either. The minuscule steps taken by Francis to combat economic corruption and child rape seem to have been designed to allow a lot of leeway for those most responsible for such crimes. The very few who have been punished in some manner are simply being used by the Vatican and its pontiff as a relief valve, a public relations sacrificial goat.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this Pope really is no different in reality from his predecessors.

Editing the "Bible"

The Religion Q&A blog's August 16th post, "Why were some verses removed from the New Testament?", actually pretty good. However, it does omit quite a bit that relates to the question posed.
The post does a pathetic job of dispelling one of the major myths/misconceptions that seem to be at the heart of the qustion.

"CASSANDRA’S QUESTION:
I’m just shocked by the information I just received about the N.I.V. Bible, that many verses of the Scriptures have been removed. So I’m searching for a reliable version of the Bible to study from. Any suggestions?"

Cassandra seem to think that there is a single original "Bible." There isn't. According to the best available research there never has been a single complete original version of either the Old or New Testament. All versions of the Bible are interpreted and edited. What's worse for those self-deluded willfully ignorant dumb-asses who claim it is the "word of God" is that there isn't even a single original copy of any of the Books of the Bible (Old or New). There isn't one intact "original" copy of any of the Books. I thought it would be a good idea to repeat that. Not that it will sink into the the psyche of any who insist the Bible is authoritative. The Bible is simply a compilation of fragmentary ancient writing that the blindly devoted routinely repackage.

There is nothing remotely definitive or authoritative in any of the current versions of the Bible. There can't be since every Book of it can be debated as to which fragments are best to use for that specific part of the Bible. Not one Book has been agreed upon by contemporary theological and historical scholars. No one who knows anything about the Bible should be "shocked" by it's editing and selections. In reality, there are no "reliable" versions in the way Cassandra seems to want.

"Forced to bake a cake"

A recent legal decision that was handed down in Colorado has caused some to throw a hissy fit. That a privately owned business does not have a right to discriminate is not a new idea. The precedent that Barry Fagin writes about in his ridiculously named "Forced to bake a cake" commentary was established quite some time ago. What is most disturbing about his writing is that he is not necessarily a far-right firebrand or a religious conservative. So why does he write: "To some, it's freedom of conscience. To me, it's freedom of bigotry. But we agree that someone's freedom was lost last Friday, at the hands of the Colorado judiciary."

His view of "freedom" seems to be a rather childish one. Throughout the piece he seems to imply that freedom is an absolute to the point that it comes across as a supernatural force rather than a human social construction. Even if we existed in a pure state of anarchy, which is also not possible, you still would not be able to do precisely whatever you wanted the moment you wanted. There are all sorts of practical reasons that this type of "freedom" does not and cannot exist. It does not take much thought to reach the conclusion that either Fagin is clueless or disingenuous. After all, would he argue that every American should have the right to kill anyone they choose to? By the same standards aren't government prohibitions against murder also limitations to our freedom?

It is not just his basic premise that is flawed. He continues:
"Does anyone seriously believe that forcing a private business to provide a product or service to a gay couple is even remotely progressive? That it will help promote tolerance and acceptance? And why would a gay couple choose to do business with someone under those circumstances? Are the political points scored really worth it?"

First, no one is "forcing" Jack Phillips to do anything. He still has a choice to make. He can continue to refuse to serve homosexuals and face fines, or he can comply with the law (which already exists and is simply being enforced). This passage makes me think that Fagin is both clueless and disingenuous. How do you simply gloss over things like the Civil Rights Movement? All you have to do to see this as utter bullshit is swap "gay" for "African American."  Should I or anyone have the right to refuse service to women just because they are women? When such discrimination is found the government has a duty to put a stop to it. We live in a civil society governed by law. Does enforcing the law always "promote tolerance and acceptance" among every individual and group in the country? How do you make progress without action?

Fagin may have reached the right conclusion that Phillips is a bigot but his route to that decision is dangerously flawed and loans credence to ideas and perceptions that do not deserve any respect.

Foolishness all around

Rebecca Hamilton's August 3rd blog post, "A Non-Theistic Christian Now Running the Washington National Cathedral", is yet another example of writing that despite being brief is loaded with all sorts of nonsense. Even the title is ludicrous. By the loosest definition a self-professed "Christian" is a theist. Any one who seeks to follow the example/teachings of the Christ figure, regardless of specific interpretations and perceptions, is living by a "theism." A few sentences from the first full paragraph seems to reveal her real issues with Reverend Gary Hall, "He isn’t too keen on the idea of life-long commitment or fidelity in marriage, either. But he’s in the bag for gay marriage and has personally assured Dr Richard Dawkins that he also “doesn’t believe in the God” that Dr Dawkins doesn’t believe in."

That first sentence is basically just a biased opinion with little to no foundation. I have not read much on Hall but what little I have does not seem to support the idea that he has no respect for marriage. This seems to be a conflation. Somehow if you're not a prude or willing to tell others who they can love and how, you must be anti-marriage. Hamilton seems to think that only heterosexual relationships count and that you must publicly insist on a strict "conservative" view of sex for your beliefs about marriage to matter. This blatantly narrow minded approach should not surprise anyone who's read more than a few posts from her on the "Public Catholic" blog. In my experience the Catholics, and theists in general, who are the most in-your-face about their faith also tend to be the most narrow minded, hypocritical, and bigoted.

As the title of this post implies, it is not just Hamilton who is full of shit. Hall himself is also a bit of a fool. He has actually commented on Dawkins in the way Hamilton quotes him. Despite claims to the contrary, Dawkins does not criticism only one version of the God concept. It is true that he tends to focus more attention on the personal/scriptural version but he has pointed out flaws in the more abstract variation. Basically both of them are rather clueless and have no idea what they are talking about. If it were just another spat between to competing Christian interpretations I wouldn't care that much. Unfortunately, competing theists tend to drag in and abuse everyone around them. The Dawkins related quotation was meant as a slur.The piece does further various biased misrepresentations of atheists and non-theists in general.

Religion as a Source of Cohesion

For a blog that is supposed to be about science, Science on Religion consistently has issues with details, nuance, and complexity. On more than one occasion they have posted on one specific study or experiment without paying attention to details or measuring it against any other work on the same topic. The July 19th post, "The evolution of Atheism", is a prime example of this lack of thought.

The first paragraph, as you would expect, sets the tone and nature of the piece quite nicely,
"Typically, when researchers study religion, they find that it brings various benefits to society: cohesion, cooperation, trust, etc. Religion evolved and persisted because of the gains religious cultures reaped. However, these findings implicitly seem to uplift religious people and make a puzzle out of atheists. If atheism (by implication) hurts the fabric of society, why did it evolve? What’s the evolutionary purpose of atheists? Political scientist Dominic Johnson (University of Edinburgh), rather than offering a definitive answer, instead suggests no less than ten possible hypotheses."

Right from the start, and throughout the piece, DiDonato simply accepts that not only is religion benificial but that it is innately and universally beneficial. If he bothered to look into the details of the various studies that have been done he would know that this is not the case. Cohesion and cooperation within a given religious group does occur. However, it occurs within a specif sets of circumstances. Once even a single one of those circumstances changes religion is just as likely to become divisive. In point of fact, many of these studies seem to indicate that once a religious group reaches a certain size and level of stability (from outside influences/threats) it tends to schism. He also overlooks a major reason that atheism is not that much of a "puzzle." 100% conformity or cohesion is never reached. There is no evidence that humans have ever completely agreed on anything. There is always at least a small faction that does not fit within the norm. These outliers would not necessarily agree with each other. There is also no evidence in these studies to reach the conclusion that atheism or any religious minority, for that matter, actually "hurts the fabric of society."

With his starting point being loaded with all manner of biases and logical fallacies it is not surprising that what follows is little more than a regurgitation of Dominic Johnson's views. Johnson does make some interesting points but none of them are that original or particularly well supported. DiDonato only briefly references Johnson's background. If you didn't notice it in the quotation above, he is a political scientist. This is an important field but not by itself of particular authority in regard to evolution. Remember, "evolution" is in the title of the piece. There is nothing to indicate that Johnson bothered looking into evolutionary biology or any other field more directly related to the study and research of evolution beyond lifting a term or two. So, where's the science? I could go on about some of the "ten possible hypotheses" but I'm not sure where to start and it is hardly worth bothering. I'll just give an idea of their nature by pointing out that one of them supposes "There are no atheists." An assertion that requires conflated a variety of unfounded beliefs together without any real reason. Yup, its that ridiculous.

I really wish those who post to this blog (it has more than one author) would either put a disclaimer at the beginning or change the name of the blog. They could forewarn that what they mean by "Science on Religion" is an interpretation of what they think passes as science.