"As man's prayers are a disease of the will, so are their creeds a disease of the intellect."
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Saturday, April 6, 2013
Ironically Infuriated
I have to admit I was a little confused by this piece when I first read it. I am not that familiar with Craig Brown but have heard of him and have come across a few of his TV specials (I'm a big fan of British comedy). I couldn't find any hints that he meant his recent Daily Mail piece, "Hell hath no fury like an atheist scorned", to be satirical. How a person who in other circumstances seems to be so thoughtful could slip into such blatant ignorance laden bigotry is mind boggling. Without any indication that it is suppose to be farcical it cannot be seen as anything other than a petty narrow minded piece of shit.
It seems to be meant as a criticism of a piece written by AC Grayling. Unfortunately, I could not find a free full-text copy (I did find a few excerpts and abstracts) of "Apes and Atheism." It is in the current issue of Prospect. It will probably be a few months before I'll be able to get a copy. From the excerpt it looks like it is a review of Frans de Waal's latest book. It only takes a few paragraphs of Brown's piece to realize that it is really just a pretext to attack both atheists in general and a few specific ones.
Right from the start he seems to mischaracterize Grayling. He claims that the piece is meant to be in "support of atheism." From what little I was able to read it was a critique of a specific book on specific grounds. I am quite familiar with Grayling's work and I can't imagine his objections being any different even if the book made atheist look like the most amazing group of people on the face of the planet. It sounds like he took issue with de Waal's faulty reasoning and inconsistencies more than anything else. I also found Brown's seventh paragraph rather interesting.
"But Grayling is highly selective with his statistics, and only manages to whittle the percentage of Anglicans down to 3 per cent by defining as an Anglican someone who goes regularly to services. In fact, a recent survey showed that 22.2 per cent of people in the UK describe themselves as Anglican (and 59.3 per cent of people in England and Wales call themselves Christian)."
Assuming Grayling's numbers are wrong, there are two points that jump out. The first is that Grayling does define his terms. He makes it clear what he is talking about. Theists have a tendency to avoid clear definitions which makes any discussion virtually impossible. Also, he is not the only one to note that there is a difference between practicing a faith and identifying with one. Theologians, clergy, and even average believers have at times not only acknowledge the distinction but made it an issue. Double standard? I'd say it is.
His piece rapidly devolves from there. Just two paragraphs later Brown continues,
"Elsewhere, Grayling’s footwork is even more deft. At one point, he counters those who point out that Hitler and Stalin were atheists by sighing ‘The usual replies have wearily to be given’, as though those who disagree with him are being pig-headedly dim-witted. Almost as an afterthought, he adds that ‘Incidentally, Hitler was not an atheist — “Gott mit uns” (God with us) said the legend on Wehrmacht belt buckles — and Stalin was educated in a seminary, where evidently he picked up a few tricks’."
And compounds his stupidity with,
"So there we have it: Stalin WAS an atheist, or as Grayling’s colleague Richard Dawkins himself once conceded, ‘There seems no doubt that, as a matter of fact, Stalin was an atheist.’ And so, too, was Hitler. ‘Gott mit uns’ predated Nazism by 300 years. It was employed for the first time by the Teutonic Order in the 17th century, and was inscribed on the helmets of German soldiers in World War I. For Hitler, it represented the historic rallying cry of the German nation. Even Dawkins, in The God Delusion, concedes that this reference to God on Nazi buckles ‘does not prove anything’."
I have yet to meet an atheist who denies that Stalin was an atheist. However, it is a fact that Stalin never did anything in the name of/for the sake of atheism.* So, what does it matter that he was an atheist? Any identifiable group is bound to have assholes among them. As for Hitler, he was NOT an atheist. The belt buckle is precisely the type of sleight of hand he's trying to smear Grayling with. It's irrelevant and has nothing to do with why anyone with a functional brain cannot dispute that he was in fact a CHRISTIAN. Apparently, Brown has never read Mein Kampf, the book that served as a Nazi blueprint, or listened to or read transcripts of any of Hitler's major speeches. Hitler didn't just praise and reference God and religion he frequently, both verbally and in writing, claimed to be fulfilling God's will.
Facts, like intellectual integrity and basic professional ethics, don't seem to matter. Brown, for whatever reason, wants to smear atheists and any pretext seems to be sufficient. If this whole piece was meant as some type of farce it is a failure. Once you cross the line from hyperbole and absurd exaggeration into ideologically driven misrepresentation and out right fabrication you are no longer using humor.
* I challenge anyone to give even one example of writing, a speech, or any document (not forgeries like the Hitler Table talks) that demonstrates Stalin promoting atheism. And, I do mean atheism not communism, or his own cult of personality.
It seems to be meant as a criticism of a piece written by AC Grayling. Unfortunately, I could not find a free full-text copy (I did find a few excerpts and abstracts) of "Apes and Atheism." It is in the current issue of Prospect. It will probably be a few months before I'll be able to get a copy. From the excerpt it looks like it is a review of Frans de Waal's latest book. It only takes a few paragraphs of Brown's piece to realize that it is really just a pretext to attack both atheists in general and a few specific ones.
Right from the start he seems to mischaracterize Grayling. He claims that the piece is meant to be in "support of atheism." From what little I was able to read it was a critique of a specific book on specific grounds. I am quite familiar with Grayling's work and I can't imagine his objections being any different even if the book made atheist look like the most amazing group of people on the face of the planet. It sounds like he took issue with de Waal's faulty reasoning and inconsistencies more than anything else. I also found Brown's seventh paragraph rather interesting.
"But Grayling is highly selective with his statistics, and only manages to whittle the percentage of Anglicans down to 3 per cent by defining as an Anglican someone who goes regularly to services. In fact, a recent survey showed that 22.2 per cent of people in the UK describe themselves as Anglican (and 59.3 per cent of people in England and Wales call themselves Christian)."
Assuming Grayling's numbers are wrong, there are two points that jump out. The first is that Grayling does define his terms. He makes it clear what he is talking about. Theists have a tendency to avoid clear definitions which makes any discussion virtually impossible. Also, he is not the only one to note that there is a difference between practicing a faith and identifying with one. Theologians, clergy, and even average believers have at times not only acknowledge the distinction but made it an issue. Double standard? I'd say it is.
His piece rapidly devolves from there. Just two paragraphs later Brown continues,
"Elsewhere, Grayling’s footwork is even more deft. At one point, he counters those who point out that Hitler and Stalin were atheists by sighing ‘The usual replies have wearily to be given’, as though those who disagree with him are being pig-headedly dim-witted. Almost as an afterthought, he adds that ‘Incidentally, Hitler was not an atheist — “Gott mit uns” (God with us) said the legend on Wehrmacht belt buckles — and Stalin was educated in a seminary, where evidently he picked up a few tricks’."
And compounds his stupidity with,
"So there we have it: Stalin WAS an atheist, or as Grayling’s colleague Richard Dawkins himself once conceded, ‘There seems no doubt that, as a matter of fact, Stalin was an atheist.’ And so, too, was Hitler. ‘Gott mit uns’ predated Nazism by 300 years. It was employed for the first time by the Teutonic Order in the 17th century, and was inscribed on the helmets of German soldiers in World War I. For Hitler, it represented the historic rallying cry of the German nation. Even Dawkins, in The God Delusion, concedes that this reference to God on Nazi buckles ‘does not prove anything’."
I have yet to meet an atheist who denies that Stalin was an atheist. However, it is a fact that Stalin never did anything in the name of/for the sake of atheism.* So, what does it matter that he was an atheist? Any identifiable group is bound to have assholes among them. As for Hitler, he was NOT an atheist. The belt buckle is precisely the type of sleight of hand he's trying to smear Grayling with. It's irrelevant and has nothing to do with why anyone with a functional brain cannot dispute that he was in fact a CHRISTIAN. Apparently, Brown has never read Mein Kampf, the book that served as a Nazi blueprint, or listened to or read transcripts of any of Hitler's major speeches. Hitler didn't just praise and reference God and religion he frequently, both verbally and in writing, claimed to be fulfilling God's will.
Facts, like intellectual integrity and basic professional ethics, don't seem to matter. Brown, for whatever reason, wants to smear atheists and any pretext seems to be sufficient. If this whole piece was meant as some type of farce it is a failure. Once you cross the line from hyperbole and absurd exaggeration into ideologically driven misrepresentation and out right fabrication you are no longer using humor.
* I challenge anyone to give even one example of writing, a speech, or any document (not forgeries like the Hitler Table talks) that demonstrates Stalin promoting atheism. And, I do mean atheism not communism, or his own cult of personality.
Is Taco Bell really Mexican?
If there are any theists, Christians in particular, out there reading this can you please explain this one to me,
"Poll: Americans love the Bible but don’t read it much." This is by no means new information but it still both fascinates and confuses me. Why do so many insist the Bible is such a wonderful book without actually have read or paid attention to what they have read? I don't know the percentage but many who have read the "Good Book" cover to cover have done so through some type of study group or similar program. So many who do read it seem to simply accept what they are being told they should take the meaning of a given passage to be. Basically, no real thought is involved with many religious peoples' reading of a book that is supposedly such a profound experience. Doesn't that negate the idea that it is so worthy?
To me this is no different than someone proclaiming their undying love of Mexican food and in the very next breath admitting the only "Mexican" they've ever eaten came from Taco Bell. I just don't get it. If anyone has a decent explanation for this beyond the standards (faith or delusion/wishful thinking, depending on your point of view) I would love to hear it.
"Poll: Americans love the Bible but don’t read it much." This is by no means new information but it still both fascinates and confuses me. Why do so many insist the Bible is such a wonderful book without actually have read or paid attention to what they have read? I don't know the percentage but many who have read the "Good Book" cover to cover have done so through some type of study group or similar program. So many who do read it seem to simply accept what they are being told they should take the meaning of a given passage to be. Basically, no real thought is involved with many religious peoples' reading of a book that is supposedly such a profound experience. Doesn't that negate the idea that it is so worthy?
To me this is no different than someone proclaiming their undying love of Mexican food and in the very next breath admitting the only "Mexican" they've ever eaten came from Taco Bell. I just don't get it. If anyone has a decent explanation for this beyond the standards (faith or delusion/wishful thinking, depending on your point of view) I would love to hear it.
Half-Hearted Theocracy
Apparently, a handful of minor Republican politicians in North Carolina think theocracy is good idea and a few Major figures within the party agree, sort of. It looks like these religious right nut-jobs started an attempt to allow North Carolina to declare Christianity that state's official religion. It doesn't look like they are going to see it through. That's great. However, it is not because they have come to their senses or acknowledged that it is unconstitutional. It looks like they have backed off in part because the bill is so unlikely to even make it out of committee. I have a feeling it also has to do with Carl Ford, one of the co-sponsors, developing cold feet for a variety of practical and political reasons, none of which include integrity or decency.
In any case, the fact that these assholes were even considering it is very disturbing.
In any case, the fact that these assholes were even considering it is very disturbing.
Culture Shocks, March and April
I have previously made references to Barry Lynn's Culture Shocks podcast. There have been a handful of really good interviews over the past month or so. I would like to recommend four in particular.
Jim Holt http://www.cultureshocks.com/shows/2013/04/04/jim-holt/
April 4 . 2013
Author Jim Holt explores the greatest metaphysical mystery of all: why is there something rather than nothing? in Why Does the World Exist.
Ray Raphael http://www.cultureshocks.com/shows/2013/04/02/ray-raphael-2/
April 2 . 2013
By entering the world of the Constitution’s framers, and experiencing it one day after the next as they did, Ray Raphael helps us understand how and why they created the document they did in Constitutional Myths.
Candida Moss http://www.cultureshocks.com/shows/2013/03/28/candida-moss/
March 28 . 2013
In The Myth of Persecution, Candida Moss, a leading expert on early Christianity, reveals how the early church exaggerated, invented, and forged stories of Christian martyrs and how the dangerous legacy of a martyrdom complex is employed today to silence dissent and galvanize a new generation of culture warriors.
Guy Harrison http://www.cultureshocks.com/shows/2013/03/25/guy-harrison-2/
March 25 . 2013
Guy Harrison’s, 50 Simple Questions for Every Christian is an unique book which poses questions that will hopefully foster mutual understanding between Christians and non-Christians.
The entire archive of Culture Shocks interviews is well worth exploring. These four just happen to be the ones that have most impressed me over the past few months.
Jim Holt http://www.cultureshocks.com/shows/2013/04/04/jim-holt/
April 4 . 2013
Author Jim Holt explores the greatest metaphysical mystery of all: why is there something rather than nothing? in Why Does the World Exist.
Ray Raphael http://www.cultureshocks.com/shows/2013/04/02/ray-raphael-2/
April 2 . 2013
By entering the world of the Constitution’s framers, and experiencing it one day after the next as they did, Ray Raphael helps us understand how and why they created the document they did in Constitutional Myths.
Candida Moss http://www.cultureshocks.com/shows/2013/03/28/candida-moss/
March 28 . 2013
In The Myth of Persecution, Candida Moss, a leading expert on early Christianity, reveals how the early church exaggerated, invented, and forged stories of Christian martyrs and how the dangerous legacy of a martyrdom complex is employed today to silence dissent and galvanize a new generation of culture warriors.
Guy Harrison http://www.cultureshocks.com/shows/2013/03/25/guy-harrison-2/
March 25 . 2013
Guy Harrison’s, 50 Simple Questions for Every Christian is an unique book which poses questions that will hopefully foster mutual understanding between Christians and non-Christians.
The entire archive of Culture Shocks interviews is well worth exploring. These four just happen to be the ones that have most impressed me over the past few months.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)