dreamer_easy | (no subject)

(no subject)

Letter in today's SMH: It's time for atheists to start defending humanism, with the core tenets of compassion, scepticism and scientific logic, with the same fervour that Billy Graham pushed evangelism in the 1950s. What does she mean, "start"? :-) Smart-arse atheists are no less smug and obnoxious than preachy religous leaders, and damage an important cause. (And atheists who show tolerance, understanding, and a little humility are as laudable as people of faith who do the same.)

ETA: This is in the context of people struggling with theodicy in the, er, wake of the tsunami catastrophe. Natural disasters must be one of the greatest challenges to faith - terrible human evil can at least be blamed on its perpetrators. My own comfort, such as it is, is that the same planet that causes such devastation is the same planet which creates the most beautiful and varied life; it's all part of the same system.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

It's true there are individuals who are as fanatic about atheism as any born-again (a large number of them, sadly), but most atheists are quiet. As in England, there's little shame in being an atheist here in Australia, but also as in England there's a feeling that someone's religion - like who they vote for - is their own business.

I think the letter's author wants to see atheists preaching on street corners, hosting television programs presenting humanism to the masses, the sort of thing you see Christianity - and few other religions, at least in the West - doing every day, and thankfully atheists don't ever seem to do that.

Atheism and humanism, probably like any religion which is about self-awareness and self-responsibility, can't - or at least shouldn't - be sold from a TV studio. Like Buddhism or wicca it is cheapened by the experience; this is no "Old Time Religion" (ironic, of course, given the relative ages we're talking about).

This is getting rambly, but it's still morning and a boring day at work... I think I see where the author is going. Christianity is loud, it's often obnoxious, and the most fervent recruiters of its churches are not above scare-mongering to increase their memberships. The loudest voice reaches the most people, but frankly what the author fails to recognise is that even if I were to take a guitar, a microphone and a bunch of singing friends to the clocks at Flinder's Street Station and loudly sing the praises of humanism, most people wouldn't be interested. Few enough people seem interested in Christianity on that level, either.

Atheism and humanism... like any religion which is about self-awareness and self-responsibility, can't - or at least shouldn't - be sold from a TV studio. Like Buddhism or wicca it is cheapened by the experience

You don't think Christianity is cheapened by the experience?

Well, not the kind of evangelical Christianity you usually see there. After all, the whole point of evangelicalism (as opposed to evangelism) is to bring the word to the masses and convert as many as possible to the faith - and what better way to do that than via television?

It is perhaps true, though, that Christianity as a whole is cheapened by these churches, but there exists enough diversity in it for people to realise that the CofE church on the corner is not Billy Graham.

With less popularised or familiar (to most westerners at least) religions, like atheism, Bhuddism, paganism or Wicca, sterotypes persist. I think this is why so many Wiccans I know utterly despise Fiona Horne - the general public are not familiar enough with Wicca to know that she does not truly represent all Wiccans, as they don't realise the diversity that exists. (Likewise Bhuddists and the Dalai Lama, though I suspect few Bhuddists would mind being associated with him.)

The sentence you quote begs the question: defend it from whom? Evangelical theists? If this is so, then the letter-writer is blaming the victim by imputing responsibility on atheists for the theists' recruiting practices, which is just wrong.

Hmmm... I'm not sure how to answer that. Here's the full letter:
___

Edward Spence's theological conclusions are without fault in the first half. But after concluding that the tsunami tragedy means there can be no God, he starts to tie himself in knots by stating the opposite.

We don't need to resort to God's morals to have our hearts broken at the stories of children torn from their parents' arms, relatives finally found dead, some who might never be found. Even those of us with no connection with the tragedy weep over the blind indifference of nature. For those who have lost family members, believing in God will be of no comfort.

It's time to recognise religion as being often unhelpful, and at worst dangerous, divisive and violent. It's time for atheists to start defending humanism, with the core tenets of compassion, scepticism and scientific logic, with the same fervour that Billy Graham pushed evangelism in the 1950s.

Cathy Bannister, Kaleen (ACT), December 30.
___

She's responding to an opinion piece, Waves of destruction wash away belief in God's benevolence. I think she mischaracterises it.

I think most theists, of every stripe, as well as most atheists, are basically quiet and tolerant.

But those are not the ones we notice.

The loudest atheists and the loudest religious fundamentalists, although they are convinced they are at opposite ends of the spectrum, have one basic belief in common:

That those who don't agree with them are either fools, or deluded.

But those are not the ones we notice.

It's like teh Interweb, or fandom, really.

Another thing irksome atheists and fundamentalists have in common - identical definitions of God, faith, and religion.

Another thing irksome atheists and fundamentalists have in common - identical definitions of God, faith, and religion.
Excellent point, and one of the main reasons I am agnostic and not an atheist. I reject the conventional Judeo/christian inter[retation of God, but leave open the possibility that there is a force in the universe that I have no knowledge of.

*whistles nonchalantly*

Just hope I don't ever come across as one of the annoying kinds (although, you know, an pro-atheism/humanism TV show doesn't sound all THAT bad...)

Of course, given my recent comments about magick I'm starting to wonder if I'm shifting away, in practice if not in spirit (haw haw)

My comment about magickal ethics in your journal was because I thought you were about to start chucking hexes at Rumsfeld. :-)

*ahem*koff*whistles* Hmm did you say something?

I think there is a difference between atheism and humanism, and its time for the moral values of humanism to promoted with fervour. The religious right is doing its best to make 'moral values' synonymous with 'Christian fundamentalism', and we need to make the moral values of humanism something that is promoted and defended in the public sphere.

And tolerance should be a core value of humanism. But its not a 'core value' of atheism per se, and there lies an important difference.

The Guardian has also been talking a fair bit recently about the theodicy of colossal natural disasters like this one.

It's a horrendously difficult issue, no question. I have to wonder, though, precisely how certain atheists could be more militant, given that they're not above making philosophical capital out of events like this.

...Sorry if that came across as overly bad-tempered.

On an unrelated note, I've been wanting to start a trend for the use of back-formations from the common internet misspellings "athiest" and "feminest". A liberal Christian might be "athier" than a fundamentalist, for instance, while a housewife might be described as being a bit "femin" if she was inclined to argue about doing the washing-up.

*grin* That's fabulous. Mind if I quote it in

greennotebook? (I'm trying to think of similar uses for "hypocracy" and "blatent".)

Sure, feel free to disseminate them as widely as you wish.

"Hypocracy" is presumably some kind of rule from beneath, although I can't think of any obvious application for the term.

The Sydney Morning Herald has also had plenty of letters saying this proves there is no God, which ties in to what I was saying about atheists and fundamentalists using the same definition of "God". There are people whose faith has been knocked for six, but that's quite different from the "told you so" attitude, which is ugly and inappropriate.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only