Carnival of the Godless
The Irony of Katrina, Churches, and Insurance: Goosing the Antithesis has a really excellent post dealing with hurricane Katrina's destruction of churches:
An atheist will categorize this as a natural disaster, but Christians are categorizing this as an act of God. ...The churches that have been devastated in this disaster will need to be rebuilt by their preachers and their congregation. These churches have insurance, and they will or course be making insurance claims to get money to finance rebuilding efforts.
Now comes the irony. Many of the insurance policies held by these churches contain clauses excluding “Acts of God.” Finally, realize that if the Christian God really does exist, then this too is God’s will.
This is a really, really good point. If churches actually believe that this was an act of God, then they won't be able to claim on their insurance; if they make a claim on their insurance, they will have to deny that the hurricane was an act of God. I wonder if any insurance companies will deny claims based upon some of the statements being made by religious leaders?
Atheism is a Religion?: At the Sword of Freedom, we have a post responding to the recent court decision that allegedly declared atheism to be a religion. The author points out:
The Supreme Court ruling gave religious inmates special privileges not open to non-religious inmates. Prison is a deadly dull place. Religious services are something to do. They break the monotony and provide something interesting to focus on. Attendance at a religious observance is viewed as a privilege and a treat. If you are non-religious, though, you were automatically disqualified from attending such observances. That inequity has now been corrected.
I wrote about this case as well and pointed out that there are two significant qualifiers to the court's ruling that atheism is a religion: it's a "religion" only for First Amendment purposes and only for this particular plaintiff. Otherwise, it's no religion at all. This ruling is like the court rulings that declared secular philosophies (which, by definition, are not religions) to be religions for the purposes of applying for Conscientious Objector status under a draft.
De-godding Money: If you carry American money, you'll notice that the phrase "In God We Trust" appears on bills of every denomination. This didn't used to be the case, but Christians were able have their beliefs promoted via America's money and so now we're stuck with it. Or are we? Quailitude points out that with a black marker, you can just cross "God" out, thus de-godding your money.
He thinks that it's illegal, but I don't think that it technically is — "defacing" currency is illegal if done with the intent or effect that the information conveyed (like the value) is obscured, but not otherwise. I don't believe that it's illegal to write your name on it, nor to cross "God" out.
Jewish Dreams vs. Israeli Dreams: Ze'ev comments on an article by Amos Oz about the growing conflict between orthodox religious Jews in Israel who want a more religious state and Jews (some secular, some religious) who want a secular, open state:
The present struggle in Israel has nothing to do with the "Palestinians". The struggle that the Jewish People are facing in the Land / State of Israel today is over the fundamental issue that affects all others challenges that the Jewish people face in israel today:
Who are we? & Why are we here?
The issue is very important, but I think that Ze'ev misrepresents it by portraying it elsewhere in the post as a conflict between "Jews" and "Israelis." It isn't even really quite a conflict between "religious Jews" and "Israelis," though that would be a little more accurate. It is, instead, a conflict between those who want a state defined along narrow religious rules and run by narrow religious rules and those who want a state based more upon principles of liberal democracy.
What's sadly ironic about all of this is that the Zionism upon which Israel was founded developed from the 19th century nationalist ideologies which, in time, helped feed into the violent, destructive beliefs that fueled the Holocaust. It was the idea that a "nation-state" should encompass a particular race, ethnicity, or people which caused people to view the Jews as foreign interlopers who could not possibly assimilate to the native culture. This exclusivist attitude was integral to the eventual ideology of eliminationism: the Jews, as perpetual foreigners (regardless of their actual religion), had to be gotten rid of — 0ne way or another.
Anyway, it's very true that defining the nature of Israel will become increasingly important because geopolitical needs are running up against religious demands. It's a situation that I've written about quite a few times and it is something that should be watched.
Atheist Moral Conundrums: In the forum, Smart Female raises the question about how many of our traditional social taboos are technically irrational, but which even atheists continue to hold on to:
[T]he incest taboo almost certainly evolved because persons who married close relatives were not as successful at producing viable offspring (due to lethal or harmful but rare recessive genetic mutations that are more likely to be matched in close relatives than in the general population). Once one realizes the evolutionary "rationale" for the incest taboo, it becomes obvious that there should be nothing more immoral about close relatives engaging in sexual relations than there would be for a couple who knew they each carried recessive genes for a genetic disorder to engage in sex. In neither case would defective offspring be a certainty...merely a possibility.
Yet, despite this, I still find myself recoiling in disgust at the very idea, for example, of a brother and sister, or (divorced or widowed) father and grown daughter becoming sexually involved. (Those genetic predispositions aren't mere trifles, obviously!) On a rational level, however, I have to admit that there should be nothing intrinsically immoral about incest.
How do you deal with such situations? How do you resolve such conundrums?
Flying Spaghetti Schism: Apparently, believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster have experienced their first religious schism because one group of Pastafarians has started to teach that Vikings are responsible for global warning, not pirates as traditional, orthodox Pastafarian doctrine states. What sort of effect this might have on Pastafarians getting their creation beliefs taught in public schools is uncertain, but Pat Robertson is sure to issue a fatwa on one or both groups any day now.
The Skwib also has an interview with Dr. Maximilian Tundra, leader of the breakaway Pastafarian group.
God Confused About Da Vinci Code: Richard Rockley discusses Sister Mary Michael, a nun who is protesting the filming of the "Da Vinci Code" movie at the Lincoln Cathedral. According to her, when God asks her what she's done to defend him, she'll be able to say that she came forward at the Lincoln Cathedral.
Rockley rightly points out all the flaws in this. First, why is this preferable to something like feeding the hungry? Second, why is she praying to defend God — isn't she praying to God? Since when does "talking" to someone constitute defending them? Doesn't God know what's going on already anyway?
Assumptions: Lisa from "Just a Girl" writes about the assumptions so many Christians make — specifically, the assumption that others are at least theists, if not also Christians, and how difficult it can be to challenge this:
I once had a very brief discussion with someone and did a little free help on their blog to solve a very simple coding problem that took me a minute to do. The person is an acquaintance…a friend of a friend of a friend. Not someone I socialize with - - or even speak with on a regular basis. I was doing someone a favor that took me about 30 minutes to complete.
Within those 30 minutes - I had been talking to this person via IM. They had said something about thanking god for sending me their way. They offered to include me and my family in their prayers because they felt I was such a nice and good person.
Instead of opening the can of worms.. I just said, “Thank you. You’re very nice.” and left it at that.
About a week or so later - that same person had read on my blog that I’m an atheist. I then received an email berating me for leading them to believe that I am a person of faith… leading them to believe that I was a ‘good person with a pure heart’ - - they felt betrayed and hurt that they were offering prayers to a “heathen“.
Some Christians seem to take an admission of atheism as an invitation to debate, but not all atheists are necessarily interested in debating theology at the drop of a hat. If an atheist simply dismisses religious references, they may be accused of being afraid or of deceiving others. The real problem, though, is the arrogance of such Christians: the arrogance of assuming that others believe pretty much like they do and the arrogance of assuming that injecting religious commentary into every conversation is desired or appropriate.
Atheist Tactics: Vjack of Atheist Revolution asks whether atheists need to adjust their tactics and do more to reach out to liberal religious believers. Religious conservatives and fundamentalists are the more serious threat to liberty, so while liberal religion may be no more rational than conservative religion, it's at least less dangerous — right?
He's got a point. It's unwise as well as wrong to characterize "all Christians as unintelligent" or lump "all Christians in with the Christian extremists" in America. There are both practical as well as ethical reasons for finding common ground with others. When I'm critical of religion, I make a point of being specific — if my criticism is of conservative evangelicals, I say so and don't attack all Christians or all theists.
At the same time, though, it would be wise not to take such a principle so far as to ignore any important differences which might exist. It shouldn't become necessary to "tiptoe around traditions, popular opinion" and "superstitions" simply because we want to be more popular — or at least less unpopular. If unpopularity is the price for adhering to principles of skepticism, critical thinking, and being willing to speak one's mind, then it's a price worth paying.
It's all about finding an appropriate balance: not being inappropriately rude and pushy, but also not giving in to popular opinion and peer pressure.
Teaching Kids: Atheist Mommy writes about the issues involved with teaching her beliefs and values to her children. This is a problem faced by all atheists — religious believers commonly have churches or other community support mechanisms for doing this, but irreligious atheists are more often than not left to their own devices.
Truth is me and my husband want them to know about all religions, what they worship, and how. I'm not about to take my kids to church. However I do buy books (some bibles) and we watch the discover ch. "taboo" often. They seem to be getting it now.
I agree that it's important to teach children about all religions, but I do disagree with not taking kids to a church. Religion is a lived experience, a set of cultural practices, institutions, rituals which can be learned only inadequately from books or videos. Much more can be learned by personal experiences with religious services.
I would add, furthermore, than a well-rounded religious education for children would include visits to the services of many religions. Just as it makes sense to teach from books about a wide variety of religions (Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, as well as ancient mythologies), it makes sense to attend services at churches, synagogues, and temples of various sorts — not only regular services, but also those on important holy days.
Teaching about all religions equally and treating them all in an equal, objective manner can help inoculate a person against the exclusivist claims of any one of them. Similarly, experiences with many religions in a way that treats them all equally can help inoculate a person against thinking that emotionally-charged experiences of any one are superior to all the others. When you see, first hand, that Hindus are no less devout than Muslims and that Buddhist services are no less sincere than Christian, it will be hard to accept the claim that one should be accepted as exemplifying the Only True Faith.
The Devil Unmasked: Evangelical Atheist discusses how conservative Christians are increasingly using Halloween to push their agenda by branding the holiday a pagan, Satan-worshipping festival. When I was young, the only "scares" about Halloween were about razor blades in apples or otherwise tainted candy. There was no big deal being made about religion. Boy, do I miss the good old days.
Evangelical Atheist also has a post on Hurricane Katrina, criticizing Gov. Blanco's comments about the grace and mercy of God. EA points out that God wasn't very helpful when it came to preventing the disaster, much less helping all those who suffered and died after the hurricane passed by. What's the point in appealing to God now?
Idiot Principals and Sensible Students: Brent Rasmussen has a post about a principal at a public high school who believes that he has the authority (not to mention the obligation) to inject his religion into his school. Apparently the school has improved recently and the principal is attributing the success to prayer — not a word about all the hard work done by students and teachers.
Science is Not a Matter of Faith: Tom Coates writes about the importance of understanding science accurately — something which creationists appear unable to manage. Coates explains what the real problem with Intelligent Design is:
[I]t's not just about having hypotheses and testing them. Scientific rationality is also about understanding the nature of hypotheses themselves. Firstly, there may be an infinite number of hypotheses to test - even if they are only subtly different from one another. As such, with the sheer variety of options, it's probable you will never achieve an answer that you can say is true beyond all doubt. But you can get pretty close. One step is to undergo testing of reasonable hypotheses. But the other is to pass over the infinite number of untestable hypotheses that also exist. These can be passed over because there is no logical basis for giving any one of those theories any credence over any other. Untestable concepts, untestable hypotheses must be treated with enormous scepticism in any rational attempt to understand the world.
Creationist defenders of Intelligent Design — just as with religious defenders of theism — don't engage in testing their claims against reality. Instead, they more commonly engage in justifying their claims with post hoc rationalizations and fallacy-ridden arguments. Religious theists, at least, don't typically portray their claims as "science," even though they may describe them as "rational." If nothing else, this allows their claims to have a chance usefulness alongside science. Intelligent Design, however, pretends to be science — and it just doesn't work.
Faith is Meaningless: On a related note, Doug writes in the forum about the nature of faith and how faith is used by religious believers:
In a Christian context, however one arrives at faith, once attained it becomes sufficient. There need be no further inquiry, no search for additional evidence, except only for the purpose of strengthening belief. Faith-based answers are supposed to be final. No apologist to my knowledge has ever said, "We Christians believe that Jesus rose from the dead because the evidence that we have discovered so far is best explained by supposing that the gospels are historically reliable. But of course, we are still looking for more evidence and, in the event we uncover any facts that are inconsistent with our current understanding of Christianity's origins, then we will have to revise our thinking accordingly."
An individual Christian might express such an attitude personally -- that he or she believes because of the evidence and would change his or her belief upon confronting contrary evidence. Some Christians have in fact said something like that. And many Christians, whether or not they said such a thing, have indeed confronted contrary evidence and have indeed changed their belief.
But Christianity has never collectively expressed such a commitment to conforming belief with evidence, because faith, historically speaking, was never about such a conformity. Many theologians have tried to establish one, to be sure, but they have always forced a conformity by examining the evidence in light of a presumption that their faith was true.
From that perspective, the difference between faith and other unproved beliefs seems to be that faith is held as if it were infallible. In other words, what you belief as a matter of faith cannot be wrong. Any evidence that seems to contradict it must be false evidence -- or at any rate may justifiably be treated as if it did not exist. In any conflict between faith and evidence, faith has to win.
This, then, is the essential difference between a religious faith which is a belief in something unproven and any other belief in something that hasn't been personally proven, verified, or demonstrated. I may believe that Moscow is in Russia without having gone there to personally confirm it, but my belief is completely refutable, and if it becomes important, I am perfectly willing to engage in the tests necessary to conform my beliefs about Moscow to reality.
Can the same be said about religious believers who rely so extensively on religious faith when it seems to suit them?
Religious Privilege in Modern Society: I wrote a post about the concept of "religious privilege." In the past various groups have had privileges based upon that group's supposed superiority rather than through any real merit. There has been white privilege and male privilege, for example, both of which are on the way out. Remaining, though, is religious privilege: the idea that religious believers, leaders, ideas, and institutions should have some special place of deference, power, and authority over others. Like other forms of privilege, though, it's something that is long overdue in being eliminated.
Quick Takes:
Jarndyce at Fair Vote Watch has a short joke about suicide bombers. Also Canadian presents definitive, irrefutable proof that God created Man, not that Man created God as we poor benighted atheists think.
Well, that's it for the 22nd Carnival of the Godless. the 23rd edition will appear at The Uncredible Hallq on September 18th, so start thinking about what you might want to write and submit.
Comments
No comments yet. Leave a Comment