Apparently, Christians just can't get a word in edge-wise. If that were true, though, wouldn't it be harder for people like Madeleine Bunting to say absurd things?
in a recent UK poll, only 22% could identify what Easter was celebrating. What other system of belief has collapsed at such spectacular speed as British Christianity? One can only presume that the New Atheists are organising a fabulous party to celebrate. Richard Dawkins could stump up for the crates of champagne out of his sumptuous royalties from The God Delusion.
Source: The Guardian
If Christianity really were so important and necessary, why would it collapse "at such spectacular speed"? Religious apologists like Madeleine Bunting are in a difficult position because they feel a need to defend something which, by their own admission, is faring very badly. Part of Bunting's problem is her blindness to her own sense of privilege: only a person who grew up assuming that Christianity is something everyone should learn about would be concerned and shocked at lots of people being ignorant about it.
How many of the people in the same poll would be able to say much about Jewish or Muslim holidays, never mind Hindu or Buddhist holidays? Far fewer, I'm sure, but I'm equally sure that Bunting wouldn't care. In Bunting's world, only Christianity is worth learning about — at least in Britain — because only Christianity is important. That's an privileged perspective and now that it's in serious decline, she has a hissy fit.
But I'm curious as to how many of the country's finest minds would join the celebrations.
Yet she's not curious about how many of those "finest minds" are celebrating Easter themselves. They may know what Easter celebrates, but that doesn't mean that they do anything special for Easter, never mind actually participate in any traditional, religious Easter celebrations.
So why doesn't Madeleine Bunting ask that question? Perhaps it's because she wants the absence of "finest minds" celebrating the decline of Easter celebrations to imply that there is something wrong with being happy about that, but she doesn't want to the absence of "finest minds" actually celebrating Easter to imply that there is anything wrong with celebrating Easter.
Or maybe she isn't hypocritical; maybe it just never occurred to her. Just because she's making these arguments doesn't mean that she's thought very deeply or seriously about them.
What many argue is that the New Atheist debate has ended up down an intellectual dead end; there are only so many times you can argue that religion is a load of baloney.
Actually, you can argue that religion is a load of baloney as many times as religious apologists offer up loads of baloney — and worse — as if they were reasoned, intellectual, and serious ideas or arguments. That seems to be something which apologists are capable of doing indefinitely, so unfortunately critics of religion will have to be prepared to offer their criticisms indefinitely as well. I think we'd all be happier if that weren't the case, but the first step towards resolution will have to come from the Madeleine Buntings of the world who need to find the inner strength to give up their dependence on nonsense.
404,000 citizens of the UK claimed Jedi as their religion during the 2001 census. They were not counted as an alternative religion and wound up incorporated in with atheists. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8003067.stm
I wonder if Pastafarians did too…
It’s curious that Madeleine Bunting “presumes” the “new atheists” (whatever that means) must be “organising a fabulous party to celebrate”. To celebrate what? That more people are behaving rationally? It almost seems like she’s trying to paint a picture similar to Arabs dancing in the streets on 9/11.
Can’t help but think that a belief system that genuinely had the all-knowing, all-powerful and totally unchallenged supreme ruler of the universe on its side wouldn’t be so vulnerable.
When I read a column like that one by Bunting, I can’t help but wonder if such obvious nonsense doesn’t do her cause more harm than good.
Who’s in play in this debate? Those in the middle. Committed atheists will laugh. Committed theists will nod in agreement, and have their fallacies reinforced. So no change there. But what about the believer with doubts, or the non-religious person with questions? They are the intended target.
Quite frankly, I think the believer with doubts is more likely to see the mistakes in Buntings article than be persuaded by them, particularly if atheists have done a good job in the comments they post (which we usually do). Bad religious apologetics is one of the better tools working for the increase of atheism.
I used to be brainwashed, like the “MOONIES”, after the religious cult of 1970’s founded by reverand Jim Moonie, and his followers. It is this religious fanaticism has has turned me cold to religion, as anything other than the aboration of intellectual thought. I suppose we need to just relize that ALL religious experiences are deeply rooted in the evolutionary recesses of the yet developing mind, in the process of evolutionary psycobiology, or cognitive anthropology. Why is it we have not an issue with molecular antholpology, and genetics, this has been PROVEN beyond any reasonable doubt, but it is only when we realize that some molecules, ARE genes, which make up the primate, and so by extension, THE HUMAN GENOME. Originally from Naperville IL, now further south from Lockport IL. I am now a pauper, and must sacrifice my U.S first amendment RIGHTS, due to the unpopulararity religious dissent, from mainstream Cristian Mytholgy. – Mike Becker, originally from Naperville IL 60565, but now further south from Lockport IL 60441. What ever happened to the potections gauranteed me by both the Illinois State Constitutions, Article One. And the United States of Americas very First Amendment.
- Mr. Michael Shane Becker
“…unfortunately critics of religion will have to be prepared to offer their criticisms indefinitely…”
Yes, unfortunately, that seems to be the case. As a confirmed atheist, I have denied religion so many times that my constant harping on the subject could actually give currency to the power of religion, otherwise why would I have to repeat myself so often?
Nevertheless, despite this, I will continue to proselytize against ALL religions as long as I live, not just because religion is a controlling agent that holds us back and stunts our growth; not just because religion is inherently evil and spawns hatred; not just because so many con-artists (televangelists) have amassed fortunes from the poor and oppressed; but because the world in which we have found ourselves is a sometimes unkind and harsh environment that must be met with pragmatism and self-reliance, not with the childish superstitions, myths, fairy tales and biblical niceties which we were spoonfed as young children, requiring us to seek help from an invisible entity up in the sky that doesn’t exist.
We have grown up, and nonbelievers should come out of the closet and make themselves heard, come what may, otherwise religious oppression will simply continue!
Let me repeat what I have said many, many times, and will continue to repeat — indefinitely: The definition of faith in my dictionary is: “Firm belief in something for which there is NO PROOF!”