Dawkins and 'The New Atheism' | 97 comments (97 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: Dawkins and 'The New Atheism' (none / 0)

I'll pin my baseline assumptions on the universal declaration of human rights

(link is not in original)

Well that's settled then. So can we get on with the job of trying to safeguard human rights and strenghten our crumbling democricies without fighting over the evils of religion?

We have a stick that we can use to take the measure both theists and non-theists. Let's use it and let the chips fall where they may.

_{aspiring to genteel poverty}

by edwin (eeeeeeee222222rrrrreeeeeaaaaadddddd@@@@yyyyaaaaaaa) on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 06:16:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dawkins and 'The New Atheism' (4.00 / 2)

We have a stick that we can use to take the measure both theists and non-theists. Let's use it and let the chips fall where they may.

Yeah! But now I'm finding myself questioning the declaration. My emphasis:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

The highlighted part means: no knocking those below you; and no knocking those above you. I get the first reading, but the second--it depends on what they're doing...

These are just tweaks, though, and it's a human document--a declaration by humans, infallible as we all are, sorry I mean fallible--

Online Etymology Dictionary

fallible
c.1412, from M.L. fallibilis "liable to err, deceitful." lit. "that can be deceived," from L. fallere "deceive."

...but yeah, a document worth discussing--analysing like those scholars do with religious texts. Look at the history, the words, the constructs--is it any good? Who (if anyone) swears allegiance to it? What have been its effects on law?

(! Maybe I mean--and agree with you who stated it!--that behaviour is more important than the ideas that justify it--or even cause it; because behaviour is where we edge towards agreement--what's intollerable? Being constantly shouted at. Being ignored by everyone. The sciatica. The sound of the wind through the orchard--it moans!

Basic respect--we fail but if our aim is to understand--

Online Etymology Dictionary

respect (n.)
c.1300, from L. respectus "regard," lit. "act of looking back at one," pp. of respicere "look back at, regard, consider," from re- "back" + specere "look at" (see scope (1)). The verb is 1542, from the noun. Meaning "treat with deferential regard or esteem" is from 1560; respectable "worthy of respect" is from 1586 (implied in respected).
"I have certainly known more men destroyed by the desire to have wife and child and to keep them in comfort than I have seen destroyed by drink and harlots." [William Butler Yeats, "Autobiography"]

My word!

And for nanne, who typed longly!, a double bill flip--the same song, different words (but some are the same!)

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 06:42:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Archs, Edges (none / 1)

Thanks, rg

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 at 04:05:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dawkins and 'The New Atheism' (none / 1)

Well that's settled then. So can we get on with the job of trying to safeguard human rights and strenghten our crumbling democricies without fighting over the evils of religion?

I'm not going to shut up quite yet. BritGuy misses an important link in the following comment posted elsewhere in this thread:

The dominant mythology of today isn't Christianity, it's Neo-liberal fundamentalism. The neo-libs are far more dangerous than the fundies. They have far more media leverage, their mythology is so widespread and pervasive it has started to appear inevitable, and - unlike the fundies, who are merely robotic and rather stupid - the neo-libs have the potential to completely obliterate any trace of Enlightenment values. If not worse.
If he wants a target to rail against, he should attack the organ grinder, not the monkey. Because without funding and a supportive media climate, the Religious Right would fade away within a decade or two, especially if distracted with a few scandals - not hard to find, I'd guess - and some competing narratives.

I don't think neoliberal fundamentalism could have caught on in a society that does not believe in the concept of "personal responsibility" in the way that America does. It's extremely damaging because it obliterates the concept of society (in exactly the fashion Thatcher put it). I don't know that religious institutions created this concept in its modern form (I honestly have no idea) but the church certainly functions as a wellspring for it today. At a level down from this concept, the guilt and learned helplessness taught by religious institutions certainly allows neoliberal fundamentalism to flourish. Guilt can be harnessed to drive deference, and those stuck in the learned helplessness rut require a leader. The neoliberals simply swoop in and install themselves as the ministers representing god in the material world. Not altogether different from England taking over India - they simply installed themselves at the top of the caste system. Much of the work was already done for them.

There are reasons to want to submit to authority - see Escape from Freedom for example - with our finite minds we all have a point at which we must defer to concepts and assumptions developed by others. Guilt and learned helplessness drive this further, though, at the cultural level, and thus artificially lower the point at which we are willing to submit to the assumptions and concepts of others. These concepts are what need to be eliminated.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 07:07:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dawkins and 'The New Atheism' (4.00 / 2)

TBG's point, if I may be so bold as to distill it for him, is that evangelical Christianity has been co-opted by Straussian neoliberal neoconservatism (heh...) like a cheap hooker. I don't think he ignores the fact that the two have interests in common.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 07:39:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dawkins and 'The New Atheism' (none / 0)

In my opinion christianity in general, not just the evangelicals, has been hijacked, which is an important distinction from TBG's claims. That the religious right is a bunch of dumb robots is almost beside the point - the neoliberals couldn't have taken control as they have without the social structures of the sort that religious institutions provide. As long as these social structures exist, we'll be at the mercy of whatever ideology is promoted by the top.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 at 12:12:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dawkins and 'The New Atheism' (4.00 / 2)

I have read your post several times, and at some point you loose me. Perhaps this question may be an answer to the heart of your post: Why has Canada not succumbed to either neoliberal fundamentalism, or fundamentalist Christianity in the same way the US has? Traditionally, Canada has had stronger religious ties than the US. Currently it has weaker ties. I.e. - the reasons that the US has gone in the direction it has is not because of religion - though there were plenty of church leaders who were on the bandwagon as it pulled out of the station. My feeling is that we are witnessing at least two failures - one of democracy, and one of a lack of understanding of what the role of government is. I.e.: Libertarian policy leads to immoral behaviours. It is not the role of government to run at a profit or serve business. It is the role of government to serve the people. Traditionally, church and government have been synonymous. Churches are quite able to fill the role of serving the people when the government fails to do so. (Though not nearly to the same level of quality that a government can.) Perhaps you could call both of these examples of learned helplessness. You probably could call the response to Libertarian philosophy - church run social services - further reinforcing learned helplessness - especially with the poor and sick.

-----------------------------------------------------------

First, there is no such animal as "the church". It is but a dream in a theocrat's eye right now. Plenty of blood spilt to end that idea.

Second - and this is just a hunch - guilt and learned helplessness probably do not usually go well together with support for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. When you speak of guilt, I am guessing you are speaking of the Catholic Church. It seems to me that their stand on Homosexuality would fairly clearly violate the spirit of the declaration. It may, depending on interpretation, violate the letter of the document. Of course, individual Catholics may or may not be in support of the universal Declaration of Human Rights. When we measure, we are not limited to aye or nay.

At some point you are just going to have to call it a day and accept that your measuring tool may not be perfect. The question is, is it good enough? Of course you can look at other tools as well. Some may in some ways make stronger statements than the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. One example would be the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It, unlike the UDHR is quite explicit on the rights of Homosexuals. If you feel it important to examine the role of learned helplessness within Christianity, or any other religion, then do so. Don't limit yourself to religion, and do not fall into the trap of assuming one-size fits all. Personally I think that one can get unnecessarily complicated and loose sight of the forest for the trees.

If we are speaking about the attempt at making the US into a theocracy - there is no need to worry how they will measure up on the UDHR. The question is, do they support any of it?

As far as the rest of it goes: Use the measuring stick and see what you get. It seems to me that in general the UDHR tends to support positions that are farther, not closer, to learned helplessness.

_{aspiring to genteel poverty}

by edwin (eeeeeeee222222rrrrreeeeeaaaaadddddd@@@@yyyyaaaaaaa) on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 08:59:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dawkins and 'The New Atheism' (none / 0)

Why has Canada not succumbed to either neoliberal fundamentalism, or fundamentalist Christianity in the same way the US has?

Hard to say. The stakes are lower in Canada from the point of view of those who think in terms of power, as Canada doesn't have the power that the US does.

However, fundamentalism has nothing to do with it. Guilt and learned helplessness are part of the christian experience with few exceptions. (I'll also reduce my use of the term "the church" to christianity. I don't know enough about any other religions to say either way.)

At some point you are just going to have to call it a day and accept that your measuring tool may not be perfect. The question is, is it good enough? Of course you can look at other tools as well. Some may in some ways make stronger statements than the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. One example would be the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It, unlike the UDHR is quite explicit on the rights of Homosexuals. If you feel it important to examine the role of learned helplessness within Christianity, or any other religion, then do so. Don't limit yourself to religion, and do not fall into the trap of assuming one-size fits all. Personally I think that one can get unnecessarily complicated and loose sight of the forest for the trees.

Your assumption of a complete lack of nuance on my part is telling.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 11:41:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dawkins and 'The New Atheism' (none / 1)

Your assumption of a complete lack of nuance on my part is telling.

If that is true, then sorry. Still I note that you are saying "Christianity". There is no "one church" in Christianity either. No, you do not have a complete lack of nuance, but when it comes to Christianity, there are mighty few shades of gray. You do recognize that there may be a few exceptions to your idea of guilt and learned helplessness.

As long as you define Christianity as effectively evil, you will have accomplished nothing but to engage in the politics of guilt. Measure and prove. Compare to other aspects of society. What is good? What is bad? Is it true that modern Protestantism is based on guilt and learned helplessness or has Protestantism (and no, there is not a "Protestant church" either.) changed as society has changed? My impression in Canada is that it is not the same as when I was growing up. Even while growing up, Christianity was not monolithic. I was involved in advocating for an end to religious public schools. The group of people who were most interested were Christians. (With some notable exceptions like Unitarians.) Christians were divided on the issue. In general we received the most support and the most opposition from Christians. This included all political parties. Bluntly, some Christian churches were significantly more progressive and more supportive of my rights as an atheist than any of the political parties and society at large.

_{aspiring to genteel poverty}

by edwin (eeeeeeee222222rrrrreeeeeaaaaadddddd@@@@yyyyaaaaaaa) on Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 at 09:34:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dawkins and 'The New Atheism' (none / 0)

Christianity isn't evil. Like i said a few posts up, I think the social structures it tends to create leaves people more prone to being controlled by others. That's a shortcoming, not a display of evilness.

Bluntly, some Christian churches were significantly more progressive and more supportive of my rights as an atheist than any of the political parties and society at large.

This isn't about religion vs. everything else. Political parties are self-interested in power, they won't represent the people's interests unless the people demand it firmly. Churches still provide some sense of community which the rest of society has done away with. Secular society needs to recreate this.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 at 01:22:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dawkins and 'The New Atheism' (none / 0)

I suspect that we really do need more community in society, so I am certainly with you in helping to foster a greater sense of community.

Ok sorry for being slow on the uptake: Does Christianity leave people more prone to being controlled?

Very quickly, I can say yes and no to both of these and can come up with examples of specific sects or individuals to match.

Now what? Perhaps we may wish to compare it to other aspects of society and see if a particular Christian sect is contributing to greater freedom and less control compared to some other social institution or group. Still where does that leave us?

We still have a huge number of unanswered questions - such as what is the role of religion? How does religion work? What is religion? How is religion changing over time? How do religion and social attitudes feed off one another?

Let's assume you have managed to prove your point - which I do not think you will be able to do - then what? Almost any form of direct intervention will create helplessnesses and victimization.

It seems to me to be far easier to work on social policies that increase the level of freedom that people have. Universal medical care, old age pensions, unemployment insurance, and so on. These are the things that have caused religious membership to drop like a stone in Canada. Let's continue along the same line. Let's support free daycare, free dental care, higher baby bonuses, longer maternity and paternity leave, free university education and so on. Internationally, lets support peace initiatives and fair treatment for oppressed people in the third world. And yes, lets support community growth at home.

Not only that, but you can get some Canadian Christians to help you put forward these policies - especially the more left wing groups. Church antecedence has been dropping like a stone. An yet, they will work hard to implement social changes that will further decrease their numbers. It seems to me to be a win-win situation where the question of does Christianity contribute to being controlled becomes a complete non-issue.

_{aspiring to genteel poverty}

by edwin (eeeeeeee222222rrrrreeeeeaaaaadddddd@@@@yyyyaaaaaaa) on Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 at 03:52:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dawkins and 'The New Atheism' | 97 comments (97 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Top Diaries

Ukraine: Allies Waving the White Flag

by Oui - Dec 5
8 comments

Energy (and Other) Events Monthly - December 2023

by gmoke - Nov 28

Top Diaries

Ukraine: Allies Waving the White Flag

Energy (and Other) Events Monthly - December 2023

Recent Diaries

McCarthyism and Genocide of Palestinians

VDL Hard Lessons Human Rights Law

Boris Johnson 'Bamboozled' by Scientific Data

Ukraine: Allies Waving the White Flag

Stoltenberg: A Big Win for Ukraine

Mark Rutte: Using the Nation to Become Secretary General

December 2023

Netanyahu Tells Biden Fu*k Off

Keeping Up with COP28

A Sort-a Truce Extended 24 Hours

Energy (and Other) Events Monthly - December 2023

NeXiT the Trump Era of Dutch PM Wilders

Erasure of Palestinians the Zionist Dream

21st Century Pax Americana and Violence

Dublin Far Right Riots After Knife Attack

Clean Break From Peace to War

Woodrow Wilson's Collapse and the Peace Movement

A Children's Sing-Along Annihilate Everyone In Gaza

Xi - Joe Launch a New Communication Probe

The Israeli War Hoax of 40 Beheaded Babies

Occasional Series