First of all, let’s get the elephant out of the room. That moment.

I’ll paraphrase because it’s so soon afterward, and checking would cause a few logistical problems. That and my memory is still up to the task.

Sometimes I cringe at some of the things Dawkins says. Dan Dennett cringes at some of the things Dawkins says (religious memes = disease). And Hitchens cringes at some of the things Dennett says (“Brights”). And so on and so forth. Contrary to some of the stereotypes being peddled, this kind of disagreement is normal amongst “New Atheists”.

So with this in mind, a part of me cringes each time that Dawkins talks about “The Christian Position^tm“, or “if you are a…” then you believe X. It’s especially problematic when talking about the whole birth, death and resurrection business. If only because there are so many Christian takes on the position, and so many Christian takes on how to approach the issue.

I like clarity of terms more than most, but I don’t believe in reducing accuracy and/or precision in the name of clarity. There’s nothing “The” about “The Christian Position^tm” in relation to the birth, death and resurrection of Christ.

But this, while relevant, is just a pet peeve of mine, so I’ll get to the meat of it.

The charge levelled against Dawkins by other panelists wasn’t a lack of accuracy, but a lack of respect for other people’s beliefs – first by Julie Bishop, and then by Tony Burke, with the added charge of intolerance – which Dawkins didn’t get to respond to.

Given that Tony Jones, after re-affirming Dawkins’ above point, was spared a dressing down from Burke, this point isn’t what caused the inflammation. (Or maybe it’s not the point at all, but the person making it that matters – Tony Burke seemed unduly intimidated by Dawkins in the lead-up).

It was the “you can keep it!” phrase – in response to the value of the tale of the resurrection. It’s this I presume that Tony Burke called “ridicule”.

Okay, fine. It’s ridicule. (I think one could mount a defence that is isn’t, but that’d sidetrack this post).

So what? The tale of the resurrection has been proselytized in one form or another for 1800 years. You can’t reasonably expect that something that’s been so in people’s face for so long is beyond scrutiny, rejection or ridicule. There is nothing inherently wrong with ridiculing religious ideas.

And lets not forget that Dawkins was being questioned. There is something about the way his rejection was handled by Bishop and Burke that seems disturbingly similar to a spurned lover. Or disturbingly close to particular Orwellian interpretations of “secular” and “freedom” (HT: Liam Fox).

Australia (along with Canada) only just rejected the notion of the defamation of religion that was peddled at Durban-II, by boycotting the whole anti-Semitic farce. You should expect when you start defending ideas against defamation instead of protecting people, thereby trivialising actual intolerance, you’re going to leave yourself open to the adherents of actual intolerance.

Dawkins rejection of an idea was directed at the idea, not a group of people and not an individual. It’s not intolerance in any meaningful sense. Burke and Bishop need to stop pretending that disagreement on religion that’s in the public arena, is in any way significantly different from disagreement on points of politics.

But that’s just Qanda giving you your 8 cents worth.

More serious is a problem put to me by Dr. Jason Wilson. And in writing the book I’m trying to write at the moment, it’s something I’m going to have to address, albeit in more detail in the book than I will here.

“I guess my point is that it seems like a calculated attempt to limit the range of legitimate belief… that would seem to be the opposite of functional secularism – which is secure in Australia, and embraced by most religious ppl. You see what I’m saying? That open hostility to faith positions might weaken a particular form of secularism?”

(Jason Wilson, 2010)

I didn’t catch the start of Qanda, and thanks to a domestic communications monopoly, Jason missed out on a first viewing. I can’t confirm or deny from what I saw that Dawkins had called religious people deluded, although Jason was under the impression he had (or may have). After some semantic discussion, Jason his point down to the above.

I wouldn’t agree that there was a “calculated attempt”, on several grounds. First, it would be in stark contradiction to the dribs and drabs of Dawkins’ civics that you can pick up here and there. Second, it would be in explicit contradiction to the very permissive secular liberalism that the team of Dawkins and A.C. Grayling to to a public debate recently. And third, Dawkins is no political mastermind and Dawkins knows it – which is why premeditation is unlikely (and explains some of the obvious political mistakes Dawkins didn’t see coming from a mile away).

I don’t know how familiar Jason is with Dawkins et. el., but I’d like to think that after investigation, Jason would agree with me on this.

All the same, this doesn’t rule out the possibility that Dawkins’ rhetoric could inadvertently “limit the range of legitimate belief”. I’m not sure this is a problem either.

First of all, we don’t regard paedophilia and ritual homicide as legitimate beliefs, which tells us at least that we are willing to limit the range of legitimate belief if it robs people of their liberty – i.e. we are intolerant of intolerance. I’ll assume that Jason means the limiting of positions of belief ranging from apparently pointless but harmless, to defensible.

I think that according to what I can grasp of his tweeted logic, Jason may be forced to admit that there is a capacity for the likes of GrodsCorp, New Matilda and fake Twitter accounts do much the same with the range of legitimate belief – albeit at the differing levels of influence. In light of Jason’s notion above, I’m curious on his view in general of Scott Bridge’s comments on Fielding’s Pentecostalism over the years, or perhaps Ben Pobjie’s satire of Scientology.

The point I’m making isn’t intended to tie Jason to the “intolerance” of GrodsCorp, New Matilda and the fake Twitter accounts that he has an interest in. Rather, I suspect that Jason accepts that the satire and criticism put out by these authors are made in general in good faith. With allowances for acceptable human error of course.

I’d extend this to Dawkins, and the other “New Atheists” including Christopher Hitchens – the recognition of good faith in general, with allowances for acceptable human error.

I used to rail against Christopher Hitchens in stereotypical form. Only a couple of times in blogging but more often in real life. And I have to confess that this was undertaken in bad faith. I still have disagreements with many of Hitchens’ opinions – mostly involving the Iraq War and some of his more poorly thought out rhetoric. But, this narrative of Hitchens being a genocidal lap-dog of the neo-conservatives under the Bush administration, I’ve come to the conclusion, is phony.

The more you delve into the context of the man’s life, the more you find alternative motivations as more credible. And the more you delve into what he was actually writing during the years following 9/11, the more the lap-dog narrative finds explicit contradiction – his Slate article about Daniel Pipes in August of 2003 is particularly challenging to the myth. Lap-dogs for neo-cons don’t write off the likes of Daniel Pipes while at the same time talking up the likes of Edward Said. But Hitchens did – well after switching to an interventionist view of foreign policy. (Something Hitchens had adopted prior to 9/11 – from which he then criticised the Bush administration).

Hitchens is a more complicated individual, with more complicated ideas than may first be apparent. The myth surrounding him is misleading.

Tony Burke received Dawkins in prejudicial, bad faith similar to the way I once received Hitchens. And this I guess is my point.

Criticism and ridicule of an idea may push it outside the legitimate. But not accepting criticism in good faith (even if it’s made by way of ridicule from occasionally tetchy academics) has the effect of putting a range of criticisms outside “the range of legitimate belief” as well. The very notion that people should automatically respect ideas does just that – explicitly.

In good faith, I find racism and a host of other stupid notions to be stupid. I’m not going to respect them because some racist individual is made to feel uncomfortable. I’m not having my belief that racism is stupid (and I don’t mean just wrong – I mean stupid – let me emphasise my lack of respect for the idea) pushed outside “the range of legitimate belief” via a mandate of respect.

In good faith, I find team sports to be stupid – not just wrong but stupid. They’re training for the outgroup biases that are intrinsic to the game – team versus team and the assignment of superfluous gender roles. I’m not going to have my beliefs about team sports being stupid pushed outside “the range of legitimate belief” via some policy of mandatory respect. Maybe I’m wrong – I’ll gladly cede that a counter argument may be defensible, but I’m still going to call team sports a stupid idea in the meantime.

Criticism in good faith, even if wrong, isn’t the problem. It’s criticism in bad faith, and receiving criticism in bad faith that are the problems.

The problem isn’t the rhetoric of Richard Dawkins, or Christopher Hitchens, or Scott Bridges or Ben Pobjie, when made in good faith, that’s the kind of problem. If you want an example of critics who operate in bad faith, look to anti-liberal Geert Wilders*, or bogan-basher Catherine Deveny**. (I suspect that someone’s going to be unhappy with the comparison’s I’ve just made, but there you go.)

People need to get over their hurt feelings over the idea that someone may disagree with them – even think their ideas crazy. When there is public discussion, people need to get over the fact that their cherished ideas are open to ridicule if found ridiculous by others with an equal say in the public sphere. Qanda is such a public forum.

It’s attacking people for their ideas, and attacking people for their criticisms that’s intolerant. Alan Jones does it when he attacks people of Middle Eastern decent. And people do it each time they make a bogey-man out of Dawkins and/or the “New Atheists”.

What a liberal, secular society needs more of is not a notion of sacred ideas. What it needs is a greater acceptance of robust disagreement, criticism and ridicule of ideas***, and for people to find it in themselves to maintain good relations in spite of what ever hurt feelings this may cause.

I think the absurdity of all this boils down to one simple question; what needs your respect more, an idea or a person?

~ Bruce

P.S. It’s 3:40am. I’ll edit this rambling mess tomorrow.

* If you want “calculated attempts”, Wilders is your man. Makes my flesh crawl.

** I make no representation about Deveny’s criticism of religion, because after reading her classist vitriol attacking the disadvantaged and working class, I’m not sufficiently confident in her ability to consider her worthy of consideration.

*** Indeed, the reductio ad absurdum is an excellent tool for whittling away at bad ideas in good faith, but always has the effect of producing something that can be construed as ridicule of the idea it critiques. Are we to just throw it out because of the offence it may cause, in spite of the good advice it gives?

Anyone who really knows me, or at least knows how I think on the matter, knows that I don’t rush to override other people’s self-identification.

“Muslim? You’re not a Muslim! Where’s your beard?”

Self-identification is something that is an important part of everyone’s psychological make-up. A human without a concept of self, even if a selfless member of a collective, is missing something.

As an atheist, it’s particularly annoying when someone (in disingenuous, self-serving fashion) tells me that I’m really a religious person who is in a state of rebellion. Naturally following upon this that I need to submit to God’s will, which strangely enough involves me doing exactly what the religious person wants me to do.

The religious people who make this kind of argument, at least those making it to my face, never do so in good faith. I’d be much happier if they’d just cut to the chase.

“There probably is a God, so start worrying and get on with doing what I tell you to!”

I’m not in the habit of going around telling people that they aren’t a “True Christian”, or a “True Muslim” or a “True” whatever else, at the very least because it often involves the No True Scotsman fallacy. Furthermore, I don’t do it because I know that in addition to being a bit logically flaky, it pisses me off so it’s likely to piss others off. I can appreciate something truthful and honest pissing people off, and I don’t care too much about that, but when it’s poorly thought out argumentation that offends, then I’m prone to take issue. I assume other reasonable people do the same.

Even further still, there’s the matter of what is essential to being Christian et. al. – you can draw the line anywhere, and people often do so for the sake of convenience. But what is essential to a True Christian? Belief in a literal Christ? Belief in the message of Christ, if Christ is only metaphorical? Depending how you define Christianity, you can exclude all sorts of people from being True Christians.

If you believe that St Peter was the recipient of divine revelation, and that the acceptance of this divine mandate defines Christianity, then Eastern Christians – the first Christians – aren’t True Christians. If you believe that St Peter had no divine mandate, and that this is essential to Christianity, then Western Christianity is an oxymoron. Both outcomes are absurd.

It’s clear that one can pick and chose with the greatest of ease, the essential qualities of any group in order to generate a convenient definition of group members. It follows that as absurd as these definitions may be, they do allow people to be selective with their samples. And when equivocation on these definitions occur, it allows people to apply conclusions derived from one population, to be applied surreptitiously to another – even if unintentionally.

(And don’t get me started on skin colour and race – I’ll get back to that in good time.)

The alternative, is not to engage in essentialism in the first place. Instead to just assume that any given cultural identity has inherent diversity, and that membership is something negotiated between self-identification and general group-acceptance. A role in which out-group members have little, if any, say.

Still, being able to self-identify is one thing. Having your own group-identity deferred to in a civil sense is another. And having other individuals accept the definitions of your own identity in is another again.

I think it fair enough to expect society and other individuals not to run rough-shod over your cultural membership/identification, but after some preponderance on the matter, I’ve come to the conclusion that this is different from expecting other individuals to accept your identity. After all I can’t just call myself Catholic, get my friends to accept that I’m Catholic, then rock up to a Catholic church and expect to be given communion. That would be an imposture upon the Catholic church – a coercion of its clergy. I’m entitled to no such thing.

(I’m unsure as to why I’d want a Catholic communion – to have communion with the Catholics in attendance who are my fellow human beings?)

So while not forcing my definition of “Christian”, what I accept as Christian is as I’ve detailed above; no essential qualities, just self-identification and a reasonable level (allowing for a degree of dissent) of group-acceptance amongst one of the denominations. This by-and-large leaves me deferring to Christian self-identification, and leaves me out of politics such as “Catholics aren’t real Christians”.

However…

I don’t see defining Christianity as a question of religiosity. I see defining Christianity as a question of culture. A very messy question.

Religiosity is another thing altogether. It’s an acceptance of a particular ontological persuasion. So the question in my mind is not “do you identify as religious?”, but “do you accept the ontological acceptance of a deity with an interest in human affairs?”

If you identify as religious, and you don’t accept the ontology of an interested deity, then I won’t accept your religiosity. You can self-identify as much as you like, and I won’t stop you. I won’t try to push to have culture exclude your perspective. But I won’t, I can’t, see you as religious.

I can’t see “religiously deistic” as anything other than an oxymoron.

I can’t even see the census question of selecting a religion as meaningful. “Are you religious?”, with “Yes” or “No” as answers, perhaps with another question for the tradition(s) one identifies as belonging to*.

And I see religious and theistic as synonymous. So when John Shelby Spong calls his approach “non-theistic”, I call it non-religious and atheistic.

Importantly, I still defer to Spong’s self-identification as Christian. I don’t think “atheist Christian” is oxymoronic. Dawkins refers to himself as a culturally Christian atheist with a fondness for the Church of England – in this respect I don’t actually see him as that different to Spong, although what they both take from the culture probably differs considerably.

Religious identity is something that I can no longer personally accept in deference to self-identification. I have an objective test for that – which is I think acceptable, considering that were are dealing with a priori concepts.

There is a meaningful consequence to this.

When I critique religion, I’m not going to be talking about the recognition of a deistic intelligence, or a metaphorical god, or The-Universe-renamed-as-God or God-infintely-beyond-any-term-we-can-apply-to-it. I’m talking about the observance of old-grey-beard-and-genocide.

There’s a penchant for some people to complain that “My God isn’t like that! You’re not addressing me! You’re attributing the wrong belief to me!”

This is true of responses to Dawkins’ writing, where over and over and over (ad nauseum), people self-identifying as religious complain that Dawkins is dealing with a caricature of religion as a strawman tactic against actual religion.

Of course, he’s doing nothing of the sort. Dear aggrieved; he’s not talking about your “God” because your “God”, being metaphorical, disinterested, beyond-ontological-comprehension, or whatever, is not an object of religious worship. Why would Dawkins consider your perspective as representative of religion if he couldn’t in good faith, define it as religious? That’d be dishonest!

Consider the following, typical complaint.

“Professor Dawkins is a good scientist but a poor theologian. His book quotes exclusively the views of fundamentalist preachers, many from the United States.

He ignores the significant range of alternative theological perspectives that understand God not in terms of “old man in the sky” caricatures but in such concepts as spirit, life, love, and mystery – concepts that have an ancient pedigree, being found, for example, in Celtic expressions of religion and many others.”**

(Richard Randerson, 2010)

But if you can’t define “spirit, life, love, and mystery” (and all the other empirical things re-branded as God) as theistic, one can’t claim that Dawkins “ignores the significant range of alternative theological perspectives…” (emphasis added), because these perspectives are in these terms, not theological. Or in other words, not-religious.

I’ve put my cards on table in this post. Although I don’t think that Dawkins did quite a good enough job of defining religion in The God Delusion (2006) and I think this may be a problem for some readers. However, for the book reviewers, and theologians and assorted critics who make a living out of their opinion, there is a responsibility to go deeper when critiquing Dawkins’ views.

A careful consideration by critics should at least speculate on what Dawkins means by “religious” and how that influences the examples he selects. An ideal consideration would look at his past works to try to elucidate further.

I’d recommend that the critics read Dawkins’ essay, ‘The Great Convergence’, wherein Dawkins addresses what he sees as “neo-deistic pseudo-religion”, and goes on to ask…

“But if ‘religion’ is allowed such a flabbily elastic definition, what word is left for real religion, religion as the ordinary person in the pew or on the prayer-mat understands it today; religion, indeed, as any intellectual would have understood it in previous centuries, when intellectuals were religious like everybody else?”

(Richard Dawkins, ‘The Creat Convergence’ in A Devil’s Chaplain, 2003, formerly ‘Snake Oil and Holy Water’ in Forbes, 1999)

The quote is in relation to the scientific awe of scientists like Goodenough, Davies, Hawking, Sagan, and atheist priests like Don Cupitt, being redefined as a religious experience. I would argue that this extends to any experience that Dawkins would define as natural; emotional spirit, life, love and mystery. I would argue that Randerson’s “alternative theological perspectives” would not in fact qualify as religious for Dawkins (I missed the opportunity to ask him in person this morning – although it seems like a bit of a Dorothy Dixer).

Dawkins isn’t ridiculing these perspectives by way of caricature, because he’s not pretending to represent them at all. Frankly, it looks increasingly egocentric each time that I see people complaining that “Dawkins isn’t addressing my beliefs”; he’s not talking about you at all buddy.

Now I’ve been mulling this over for quite a while. At first, in 2006, I simply didn’t accept Dawkins’ terms, and perhaps in some very specific cases, I still don’t.

I still accept that there is a diversity of religious belief, and that it ultimately needs to be addressed as a natural phenomena in full recognition of that diversity. But in my opinion, this diversity is over-inflated by the critics who add the views of ersatz religion, the views of spiritual-but-not-religious life stances – human experiences we have been told time and time again that you can’t have without God.

Perhaps if The West were more accepting of the notion that you can be good without God, there would be more recognition that there was no God in these good experiences.

At any rate, I’ve made my position clear. Take it or leave it, I’m not coercing you. Just as I won’t be coerced into accepting others’ terms; I’ll either take or leave them as well.

Self-identified-religious people…

If I don’t recognise you as religious, try not to take offence. Even if I don’t think  much of your ideas, I don’t think any less of them because I don’t think them religious. And much less do I think that it reflects on your character.

Perhaps you should indulge me, and others like me, in the same way that I tolerate the people who compliment me that I’m “doing God’s work” whenever I do something charitable.

Perhaps you should view my including you in the club-of-the-Godless as a welcome sign to my in-group; take it that I’m not going to discriminate against you just because you’re culturally Muslim, or culturally Christian, or culturally whatever. (Not that’d I’d discriminate against the religiously Muslim, Christian or whatever, either – it’s just an added guarantee).

Those are the terms of my perspective, so please include them in any consideration of my views on religion!

~ Bruce

Update: I read The God Delusion three times between 2006 and 2008. I’ve just checked some of the above against a reading of the relevant part and it seems to me my issue with the way Dawkins defines religion is overstated. Dawkins seems to have defined religion quite clearly. The change from my prior position not withstanding, could it be a reader-effect due to having more contextual understanding than I did in 2008?

* Perhaps this could put to rest the dubious practice of the state denying religious status to religions based on their numbers – granting tax breaks and consideration to the big ones, while discriminating against the small.

** It has to be said that while Randerson’s triumphalism is unfounded, his civics on the matter of the New Zealand atheist bus campaign is to be commended.

My old economics teacher at High School had a reoccurring* error that plagued their writing at University. Specifically, whenever they though “union”, they wrote “onion”.

I’ve identified as similar thing happening with my use of the word “dearth”. Specifically, that where I’ve intended to use the word to indicate a lack, I’ve written it as if it means “plenty”. Usually though the omission of a negative – e.g. “no dearth” meaning “no shortage” becomes “dearth”.

I was only aware of having done this once, but reading back through my blog after catching myself almost doing it again, I found a total of three instances. Argh!

There is a silver lining on this cloud though. Upon catching myself I became explicitly aware of the steps my mind went through in recalling the definition of dearth on-the-fly.

If you asked me flat-out what “dearth” meant, I’d tell you that it meant a lack, or a shortage or a scarcity or whatnot. But when I’m tack-tack-tacking away on the keyboard, my thought process is a little different. When this word comes along in this context, I go through a mnemonic – and a false one at that.

Here’s how it works.

1. Dearth.
2. David Dearth.
3. There’s no shortage of David Dearth.
4. No shortage = plenty.

Given that I used to be into bodybuilding in the 90s, and probably will get back into it at some point, whenever I hear “dearth” I probably think of the ironically named bodybuilder. Or at least I probably, often go through this false mnemonic.

Now the problem is, if I remember this mnemonic explicitly, will it reinforce the problem or make it go away?

Maybe if I just remember “David Dearth is ironic”, it’ll be alright.

I wonder what was going though my (conservative) economics teacher’s mind. Unions make me cry?

~ Bruce

* Should be “recurring” as pointed out in the comments a while back. I’ve left it for the ironic value. Oddly enough, neither the spell-checker in my browser, nor in WordPress, is detecting the error. Curious if this is the same for other WordPress bloggers.

I’ve been away from the blogosphere a bit because Uncle Sean has me working on something. I’ll be back to regular scheduled blogging, which is to say totally disorganised, by Thursday.

Even if I do post a post before then.

~ Bruce

Okay. It’s yet again time to trim back the tabs on my browser.

It’s looking like a long list, so I’ll get to it.

Censorship, cybersafety and the Internet Filter

Read a takedown of polls surrounding Conroy’s intended Internet Filter at MKG – ‘Hungry Beast: 80% of Australians Want Mandatory Internet Censorship? Really?‘

Larry Magid explains why he thinks that the current approach to online safety is misguided (in a rare good post at HuffPo) – ‘We Need to Rethink Online Safety‘ (Thanks to Mark Newton for this link.)

The Pirate Party Australia publishes a letter from their Finnish counterparts, on what their experience in Internet Filtering has been like – ‘A Message From Finland’ (Again, thanks to Mark Newton.)

More on the RC rating for videos depicting female ejaculation here at Hungry Beast in ‘Your Orgasm Is Classified‘, and apparently, on a related note, Barnaby Joyce and Guy Barnett are big-tit men, pushing a similar ban on the depiction of small breasts as detailed in ‘Australia Bans Small Breasts‘. What about small cocks? Guys?

More recently, Senator Conroy’s proposed Internet filter has received more criticism, this time being unanimously, and unequivocally opposed by the Computer Research and Education Association (CORE) – ‘Filter unanimously opposed by Australasian Computer science academics‘.

Further to this, Electronic Frontiers Australia has set up a petition to oppose Senator Conroy’s Internet filtration plans. There is code there for bloggers and webmasters to add a button and link to the petition, which I’ll have to do in short order.

Those Ugandan Gay Genocide Laws

Over at Waking Up Now, in response to US President Obama’s (rather late) criticism of Uganda’s proposed anti-gay laws, read about how the wording of the legislation allows the friends of gay people to be executed as well – ‘Uganda’s Kill-the-Straight-Friends-of-Gays Bill‘

Religion

In an astounding act of religious discrimination, Cherie Booth QC, wife of former UK Prime Minister and alleged war-criminal Tony Blair, has decided to hand down a lenient sentence to a man found guilty of breaking another’s jaw, because he was religious and therefore could be expected to “…know this is not acceptable behaviour.” I guess without God, anything is permitted? Give me a break – ‘Complaint after Cherie Booth spares religious man from jail‘

Commenting on the necessary logical implication, and thus precedent set by this discriminatory sentencing, AC Grayling writes for RichardDawkins.net – ‘A religious but not righteous Judge: Cherie Blair‘

Courtesy of Rod Benson’s twitter account, I was directed to this article in the UK’s Tele – ‘Atheists ‘just as moral as churchgoers’‘, which I’ve seen around the tubes has caused a bit of anger amongst a few atheists (I’m looking at someone from the Think Atheist crew). First of all let me say it wasn’t a population study. Second, it was about the psychology of ethical reasoning, not the sociology of organised religion. Nor did the article pretend to be any more than that. Existing studies showing atheists to outperform the religious in moral behaviour are by and large correlatory (and correlation isn’t causation – Dawkins warns against this The God Delusion), and subject to influence from other variables (education, other socio-economic factors).

Keeping these things in mind, a null hypothesis of no difference between religious and non-religious morality, in a psychological study showing the religious weren’t overly influenced by religious dogma, isn’t something to get in a stink about. In context (which for once the tele seems to have actually managed) it’s nothing for atheists to feel cheated by, and indeed it challenges common bigoted stereotypes about atheists.

If you are up for some extended video viewing, the IQ squared debates have been published online with more regularity/accessibility of late. I recommend the ‘Atheism is the new fundamentalism debate‘ with Richard Dawkins and AC Grayling pairing off against Richard Harries and Charles Moore. (Given past discussions, I think this would be good viewing for Bron!)

Science

Some time back, there was a brief flare up about the firing of Susan Greenfield from her directorial role at The Royal Institution. After reading some of the bad science she had put out in public, and considering Greenfield’s misguided development that brought about a massive state of debt for the Institution, and vastly overpriced drinks at its new and largely unwanted bar, I really can’t see Greenfield’s complaint of discrimination holding up. For more on the junk science, Susan Blackmore writes ‘Goodbye to a not-so-good scientist‘.

Politics

Paul Sims writes for The New Humanist, that Geert Wilders is not champion of free speech, owing to his own censorious policies. ‘Geert Wilders: martyr of truth?‘ For those atheists opposed to religious censorship and blasphemy laws, this is a must read. And a good read for anyone else. A pity that Pat Condell couldn’t get this through his thick head.

Nature

If you like a good bit of ethology twee, and it doesn’t make you anthropomorphise when you shouldn’t (i.e. when doing ethology), here’s some kitties and a chimp – ‘A Mom is a Mom no matter what the species‘ – I don’t know about the title though. Makes my contrarian mind dredge up images of black widows and mantises.

Blogosphere

I’ll have to make a few additions to my blogroll. Torque Control, PodBlack Cat, Hope For Pandora, Unreasonable Faith, Atheist Revolution, Stupid Evil Bastard, Skepchick and The New Humanist Blog will join the blogroll soon. And if Beep Beep It’s Me gets back up and active again, after her 2 year-plus hiatus, I’ll put her back on as well! (Again, welcome back!)

A couple of bloggers I’d like to see return to the ’sphere are Arthur Vandelay of Five Public Opinions, and Don Quixote of Silently Speaking. Art’s been out of the game since April of last year, and DQ has been AWOL since July of 2006. I miss these guys. DQ was my first regular commenter back in the second half of 2005 on Bruce’s Rave and Rant. I was reading Five Public Opinions for almost as long. Some good stuff if you look back through the archives.

~ Bruce

There has been an argument in theological/cosmological circles for a while now that I’ve seen from time to time but haven’t addressed, surrounding the existence of a singularity at the beginning of the Universe. Why?

For some reason that I honestly can’t fathom beyond some possible act of desperation, from time to time I’ve seen the singularity being called “God”. I want to have this post in place for the next time I see an example because I think it’s a really problematic argument.

Personally, I think that Coca Cola would make a better deity; the drink not the corporation. It has about the same capacity to give moral and spiritual guidance as a singularity, but with the added benefit of empirical evidence to buttress any ontological assertions. Although maybe a Coke bottle isn’t enough to hang The Infinite off of.

Yes, yes. Very clever. Grow up. Etc. Blah, blah, blah… It’s a reductio. Give a counter argument to show why it’s invalid, or live with it. I suspect most readers here will do the latter.

In case some of you reading this don’t know, there is no empirical evidence that singularities actually exist. They are simply inferred by our current, limited understanding of the Universe. Particularly the general theory of relativity.

Singularities are inferred in general in two (or more) places – in black holes and at the beginning of the Universe (and at the end in some inflationary models, and at the bounce points of some rebounding Universe models).

Get enough mass in a small enough area, and gravitational collapse will, according to the general theory of relativity, become intractable – down to a single, finite point of infinite density and zero width, height or depth. Time comes to an end (or a boundary) as well.

Why is this a problem? Why are singularities a bad thing to hang God (or anything else) off of?

General relativity, a theory which makes a host of testable predictions (including black holes),  provides an extremely accurate account of the way gravity works in the Universe. Quantum mechanics, which deals with the very small in a similarly successful way, doesn’t deal with gravity at all (at least not yet); gravity which is a very weak force, at the scale of the extremely small, isn’t particularly amenable to study. It’s like trying to study the smallest volume of the most diffuse gas – you don’t have enough to work with.

There is of course one glaring exception where gravity is significant on a quantum scale – the alleged singularity, or at least, the confined conditions at the heart of a runaway gravitational collapse. So what if it’s a weak force? Under these conditions you’ve got a lot of it, so much so that in a black hole, it should dominate the other, stronger forces.

The singularity should ideally be the place for general relativity and quantum mechanics to cross over. Indeed, necessarily if the two theories were to maintain logical self-consistency; by definition, both theories have the singularity within their domain and hence both need to explain it seamlessly.

But this isn’t the case. The situation is far from ideal. All those infinites get in the way of being able to tie one theory to the other. The math doesn’t work. The two theories as they stand, are irreconcilable. One or both has to change. And that’s before considering the fact that quantum mechanics normally deals with matter, while general relativity deals with space-time.

Hence the singularity isn’t something that can be reasonably asserted as actually existing. The singularity is a mathematical product of our current deficient understanding of the Universe, at precisely the point that our understanding fails. The part of theory that predicts singularities is the part that is broken. The singularity isn’t a thing, it’s a place-holder for a gap in our knowlege.

I use the word “gap” advisedly. As in “God of the gaps“.

Although maybe it’s even worse than that.

Traditionally, a God-of-the-gaps argument states that “where there is a gap in human scientific knowledge, God did it”. But this singularity mumbo-jumbo is different. This is a case of “there is a gap in human scientific knowledge, and God is it”.

God of the gaps theology traditionally reduce God’s role in the Universe as human understanding advances. God’s agency being squeezed out like the cream in a Monte Carlo.

However, if the singularity is ever done away with, if a theory of quantum gravity is developed that reconciles general relativity with quantum mechanics and doesn’t posit a singularity as a mathematical product, then that gap is gone. But instead of God’s agency being the cream in the Monte Carlo being squeezed out, it’s God itself.

It should be obvious that the rejection of the concept of the cosmological singularity is a possible, reasonable outcome of honest scientific conduct. Or even just a part of responsible speculation in an attempt to develop the first hint of a solution to a very difficult scientific problem.

The Hartle-Hawking theory is just such a speculation (see Hawking’s A Brief History of Time for an in-depth explanation). At least in as far as the Big Bang is concerned. By applying the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle to space-time, specifically to the state of a given dimension (uncertainty of space-or-time) – Hartle and Hawking demonstrated in theory that it is possible that space time as we know it emerged from a region of uncertain space-time on the Planck scale.

Which is to say a region of space-time that is very, very small, but not infinitesimal.

Singularities are discrete, infinitesimal points (or rings in the case of a rotating black hole) of infinite density and zero volume, but when space-time is itself subject to the Uncertainty Principle as in the Hartle-Hawking theory, there aren’t any discrete, singular points in space-time in order for singularities to be possible. I’ll avoid using the phrase “impossible initial conditions” because even “initial” is in this scheme is by definition impossible.

At such a small scale, according to the Hartle-Hawking theory, quantum effects would hold sway allowing for time to emerge from a fourth dimension of space, and thus allowing the Universe as we know it to follow.

Still, it’s a speculative theory; testable predictions haven’t emerged from it.

It is useful speculation all the same, because it provides logical refutation against assumptions held to be a priori truths that restrict the way the Universe is theorised about. For example, the assumption that a finite Universe must have a beginning (a reoccurring theme in cosmological arguments for the existence of God) is ruined by the logical possibility of the Hartle-Hawking theory.

It may not cure our ignorance about what may actually lay at the heart of a black hole, but what this reasonable speculation and speculation like it does tell us, is that the singularity (and the “first cause” in general) is an ambiguous and unsafe place to park your cherished ideas!

Maybe somebody should put up a sign.

~ Bruce

Afterword: Aside from being a pre-prepared rebuttal, I’m writing this in anticipation of singularity-dogma, and the casting of singularity-rebuttals as alleged atheist propaganda, rather than responsible inquiry.

There are any number of common phrases that rub me up the wrong way, and among them is “sexual jealousy”. Usually the term is applied to some poor sod who either hasn’t got his (and it’s usually a guy) wick wet in a while, or harbours a resentment towards people who have a sex life.

Why is this a problem? Envy is when you harbour a desire for something you don’t have. Jealousy is when you harbour a desire for something that has been taken away from you.

Even if it’s over an ex sexual partner, it shouldn’t be called “sexual jealousy” because neither one’s ex-partner, nor their sex, is something for another person to own. They own themselves and they own their sexuality, and they grant access as they see fit. Nobody’s taking anything.

The only way sex can be taken away from someone is when one’s own sexuality is impaired by an external force – say chemical castration or a particularly nasty accident that leaves one physiologically unable to engage sexually. But this kind of thing isn’t usually what is on one’s mind when they say “sexual jealousy”.

So for a start, let’s begin by calling what we are talking about by the term “sexual envy“.

I find people who manage their sexual envy poorly particularly irritating at times. And so do a lot of people. The negative consequences of poorly managed sexual envy can be anywhere between someone being a bit of a jerk, to being a sex offender.

I’ve been meaning to post on this as a “people who shit me” post for a while now (it’s been an issue of annoyance for years and years of living amongst geeks), but I think I’ll play it a bit less rhetorical this time.

Feeling entitled to something nobody is entitled to

It becomes a lot more obvious when you appreciate that sexual envy finds its foundation in sexual entitlement – “I should have that”. Sexual envy isn’t just a melancholy over not having one’s desires met. Furthermore, sexual entitlement, if true, would necessitate sexual obligation on the part of some other sexual partner irrespective of consent.

Sex is a private matter. Not necessarily private in that we shouldn’t hear about it in public, but private in that it is in no part whatsoever a part of the commons. Consent via a private social contract is therefore necessary and thus entitlement to a sexual partner is impossible. People who seek to appease their own sexual desires by avoiding these contracts are what we call sex offenders.

The first and foremost thing that the sexually envious have to come to terms with is that they aren’t entitled to a partner, and therefore there is no justification for their envy – just explanations. They don’t have a reason to be envious, just reasons that they are.

It’s not always a serious problem

To a small extent, this is understandable and can be tolerated.

To cite a different instance of akrasia from my own life, I have moments of anger over a number of tragic deaths that have occurred amongst friends and family. I’m not entitled to have my friends enjoy immortality, or for them to be immune to risk. Death happens.

I don’t think it too much to expect that I get a bit of consideration around these kind of events, that I’m not going to be able to be entirely reasonable. But I still have to come to terms with, and properly manage this anger as best I can so that it doesn’t consume me, or become a problem for other people. When the shit isn’t hitting the fan, I think I do pretty well.

Similarly, I think we can afford to tolerate the occasional “all the good guys are either taken of gay”, or “I won’t be getting any tonight” by the sex-starved. This much is just harmless venting. A minor akrasia with the implicit, stoic recognition that things are what they are.

But there are plenty of ways in which poorly managed sexual envy, short of motivating sex offences and other, more disturbing phenomena, can still be the basis for antisocial behaviour.

Plans and pick-up lines

“I’m planning to get laid tonight!” says the young guy who has no idea who he is “planning” to have sex with. Given that consent is required, plans shouldn’t be made in the absence of the other, prospective partner. “I want to get laid tonight” is far more appropriate. If you do, you do. If you don’t, you don’t. And it’s not just rhetoric this. How many young men (and it’s usually men) go out for a night on the town with expectations (i.e. sense of entitlement, predicated on the obligation of a stranger) of getting laid, only to wind up in a fight? Or looking stupid (which they probably deserve)?

At the very least, this kind of attitude shows a premeditated disposition of bad faith towards potential sexual partners. It’s the kind of motivation that lay behind many a rehearsal of pick-up lines, which largely fail for this reason – if not the pathetic desperation, the inept attempt at manipulation is the ultimate turn off. The object of affection is left in the position of accepting the advance at the expense of their self-respect – “I actually slept with him after he used that line?”

For anyone to say “yes” to this kind of approach is to humiliate one’s self. “If I told you that you had a nice body, would you hold it against me?” Seriously, does anyone seriously expect another human being to abandon their self-respect just to get into the sack with someone spouting this kind of rubbish?

The plans and rehearsals are predicated upon a lack of respect, a failure to fully appreciate the concept of consent and again, as sense of entitlement. And it doesn’t go unnoticed – which is why it doesn’t work, except with the most sad and desperate and most willing to humiliate themselves.

Envy as ulterior motive

You’ve probably seen this oodles of times. People who go around critiquing other people’s relationships in instrumentally misleading fashion.

“She’s not good enough for him”. “He doesn’t treat her right”.

Either through gossip about how Ms X was a tramp, or how Mr Y doesn’t pay proper attention to his partner, it’s pretty much the same formula at its roots. Feign genuine concern for the welfare of the object of desire, cook up charges against the competition and naturally it (conveniently) follows that one’s self is the best candidate as lover.

It’s about as obvious to everyone as plans and bad pick-up lines. Everyone except perhaps the person performing the mental gymnastics. And again, it is predicated upon a lack of respect for the person desired, a failure to fully appreciate the concept of consent and yet again, a sense of entitlement.

Do you really think that she’d let her boyfriend talk to her like that? Do you really think she has so little self respect? Could it just be that they are having a bit of a joke? Do you really think so little over her to think that she actually needs your critical analysis?

Do you really think that just because they let you into a part of their lives, that they’ve invited you into the most personal aspects of their relationship? Did they consent to you being there?

What makes you think that you’re even a candidate for replacing the existing partner, even if she does give him the flick? What a sense of entitlement!

Emotional fallout

When there is a stoicism involved, with the implication that there is no entitlement, the emotional fallout from a friend with a lousy sex life is one of those things that friends just put up with. When the problem is amplified by depression, or anxiety, support should be able to be found from the appropriate health care professional – such support in my view, unlike sex itself, being a part of the commons. (Indeed, I think that those of the sexually envious denied a nationally funded mental health care scheme when they need it, have grounds to be angry – on this count they are entitled.)

But when it gets to the point that entitlement is surreptitiously assumed, as is the case when the sexually envious think their envy is justified, and people start to be treated in bad faith, that’s when tolerance can quite reasonably be wound back.

“Take me out with you so I can get laid as well!”

No.

For one, and healthy minded outing doesn’t treat sexuality as some kind of hunt. Sex just happens. A healthy sex life is a function of a healthy social life and a “hunt” isn’t healthy.

If your friends are getting laid, and they’re not hooking up in dubious arrangements, odds on they’re not “hunting” . Odds on they’re just treating people right.

And seriously, do you think the guys or gals or guys and gals want to go out for a night on the town, with someone who views the outing as a “hunt”? Someone with a penchant for “she’s not good enough for him”, or “he doesn’t treat her right”?

The only sexual entitlement is for one’s sex life to be free of coercion from outside of one’s mutually informed and consenting partnership. Being cock-blocked by the sexually envious,  constitutes such a form of coercion. Sure, the guys and girls may have not been out on the hunt, but if they hook up in good faith, who is the sexually envious to get in the way?

Entitlement squared

The emotional fallout can be hard on people having to deal with the sexually envious and putting up with it, when entitlement is assumed, is really an act of charity. People don’t have to put up with behaviours motivated in bad faith, not even from their friends.

I’ll say it again – it’s charity. And I mean “charity” with a specific meaning.

Welfare can come from the commons, in which case people have an entitlement and should expect it (within the limits of the tragedy) from a civilised society. Welfare can come from charity, which is not a part of the commons, which therefore people don’t have an entitlement to.

When sexual envy dominates a certain kind of private social interaction, to the extent of motivating behaviour in bad faith, the sexually envious remain within the private social setting from the charity of the other parties. They aren’t entitled to get laid on a night out on the town, and they aren’t entitled to being taken out on a night on the town by their friends if they’re going to behave like that.

I think this is true in a broader range of social settings, if not all social settings.

If the sexually envious insinuate themselves closer to someone else’s partner at a social gathering, they can expect to be ejected from it. They can expect to be ejected from their network of friends altogether. In a workplace setting they can expect their due warnings, then to be fired.

The sexually envious aren’t entitled to sex, and they aren’t entitled to having their sense of entitlement entertained.

After an extended period of this kind of behaviour, or if after due warnings, the sexually envious need to realise just how much their relationships are an act of charity on the part of other, private citizens. Charity that can be repealed with out further warning.

The sexually envious really need to take responsibility to stop it getting this far in the first place.

Diminished capacity

It can be argued that sexual envy is in some cases at in part pathological. At least I don’t intend to prejudice this.

But all the same, unless those having a problem dealing with sexual envy are institutionalised or in a prison for sex offences, the odds are that they still have other faculties in tact. It’s just that for the sake of their particular weakness, they lean very heavily upon their social network.

This reasonably comes with a cost and the cost is control.

If the sexually envious acknowledge that they have diminished capacity in managing something that has consequences for others, it falls to the capacity of others to deal with it. In any effective deferral of such capacity comes the deferral of some form of decision making.

This is reinforced by the realisation that one’s social network are within their rights to abandon someone treating them in bad faith. They have an entitlement to say no to private social interaction just the way that a potential partner can say no to sex.

I don’t think this ultimatum is one made in bad faith – the diminished capacity is in itself a kind of ultimatum in the way it limits choices, and having this foisted upon a social network is what drives the ultimatum in the first place. The sexually envious with diminished capacity had an ultimatum hanging over their heads in the first place. There’s no loss of freedom in this arrangement, just accounting.

So when the sexually envious pleads to their social network that they can’t control themselves properly, they are inviting the social network to take control for them. They are inviting the social network to set boundaries for them anywhere between minor considerations to total exclusion. The members of the social network have the right to protect themselves from the full array of antisocial behaviours stemming from sexual envy.

The sexually envious need to realise that this extends to discussion of control. Like it or lump it, the sexually envious need to realise that boundaries preventing discussion of matters of control in bad faith, can include boundaries preventing discussion of control altogether. Negotiation isn’t an option unless given by way of charity.

Ultimately, the sexually envious who plead diminished capacity can reasonably be excepted to accept the terms their social networks give them, or can reasonably be excepted to leave their social networks altogether. And before they whine about being emotionally exploited – their obedience in return for emotional needs being met – they should consider their track record amongst their cohort.

The fact that they are still in the cohort in the first place, with no conditions made before the plea of diminished capacity, shows the good faith and grace they have already been shown – to deny this would be disrespectful. If the seriously sexually envious individual has a cohort willing to take them on board, warts and all, they should be happy and grateful, not spiteful and selfish.

What the sexually envious (from the benign to the malicious) need to really get their heads around

• Not having a sex life is not pleasant and is clearly sub-ideal, but it is not a problem necessitating a solution. To require a solution would first require an entitlement to be unmet, but there is no sexual entitlement to be met or unmet in the first place.
• The problem (if any) necessitating a solution in the first place is the treatment of sex as an entitlement, which necessarily presupposes sexual obligation from others. Which is wrong.
• If they treat sex as an entitlement, it’s probably a good thing they aren’t getting it. People so selfish don’t deserve the intimate trust of others.
• When they aren’t getting sex because they treat potential partners in bad faith, it’s because self-respecting potential partners are turned off by this. And being turned down in these cases is a good thing because it preserves the self-respect of the person being approached for sex, while costing the suitor nothing worthwhile that they possessed in the first place.
• Trying to not see sex as an entitlement, to try and get laid, is not a solution. The goal of getting laid, from an envious perspective, presupposes entitlement and is thus doomed to fail if overcoming entitlement is the primary goal. Which it should be.
• The sexually envious are entitled to medical assistance for depression, anxiety and any other medical reason making things worse. They aren’t entitled to the charity of having their friends deal with acts of bad faith – and in cases of chronic bad faith, aren’t even entitled to the friends they treat this way. Psychiatrists, social workers and others are paid for that and it’s for the sexually envious, not their friends, to pick up the slack.
• The sexually envious who manage their emotions so poorly as to regularly engage with their cohort in bad faith, can’t expect their cohort to keep them around without conditions being met. Nor can they expect their cohort to be open to negotiation on these conditions.
• Being sex-starved but keeping your sexual envy well managed, is a better state to be in than being sex starved and rabidly envious. Sex shouldn’t be the goal. Getting over envy should.
• And finally, because it warrants repeating – there is no sexual entitlement on which to base sexual expectations. Sexual entitlement, not lack of sex, is the problem.

~ Bruce

P.S. I’ll proof this post over the next few days. It’s been a long night!

(Image Source: LogicDude)

Oh, and on a related note – common wisdom and public mythologies about participants in the discussion of religion.

I’ve been enjoying a little trick of late, that I may formulate into a questionnaire of sorts.

Basically, I’ve been taking the work of religious writers, either stripping them of identifying details or presenting them to unfamiliar audiences, providing sources for the quotes they make and then prompting feedback. I’ve been doing much the same thing with chunks of text written by Dawkins, Hitchens et. al.

The people I’ve been presenting this material to have been those that identify as moderate-tolerant – either atheist or theist. Either shying away from ostentatious conversation, or subscribing to various tropes about vocal atheists being intolerant, purely engaging in ad-hominem, etc. etc. I’m an atheist, but… or I don’t subscribe to fundamentalism, but…

Interestingly, the Hitchens and Dawkins quotes have been well received (“I don’t mind this kind of atheism, but…”), while the religious quotes have largely been damned as fundamentalist.

The fact that the Hitchens and Dawkins quotes seem to be viewed as more reasonable than the work of Hitchens and Dawkins (principle of non-contradiction!), is only half as interesting as the way the religious texts (specifically, obvious misquotes of atheists) are being received. Specifically, they are being written off as fundamentalist, right-wing, “not like mainstream Christians”, or otherwise allegedly different to moderate Christianity.

So far nobody has sniffed at the end of one of these dismissals – although I live in hope.

The irony lies in the fact that I’m using religious texts by popular, well-respected, progressive, supposedly moderate, mainstream Christian authors! Alister McGrath, Madeleine Bunting and so on. I’ve even sometimes felt the need to defend these authors in the process when the condemnation has got a bit overzealous – “you know, the author actually isn’t right-wing”, or “no, no, they criticised the Pope for that!”

It’s all anecdotal of course. Not a controlled study. But it’s still interesting all the same.

I wonder what a proper study into perception-of-author-versus-perception-of-the-text would show! Maybe someone else has already done the research. Better get checking!

~ Bruce

Bron asked on Twitter today…

“Q: do atheists bang on about being atheists almost as much as fundies bang on about being fundies? Enquiring minds want to know.”

A confession: I do bang on about being an atheist. Although I’m not entirely sure that this answers Bron’s line of enquiry.

I think Bron was focusing more on people who brandish their atheism in an overbearing fashion. (Bron, correct me if I’m wrong.)

I’m going to start by addressing Bron’s question, and then run with it and address something I’ve been meaning to blog about for some time now.

First of all, I suspect that atheists don’t bang on about being atheists as much as fundamentalists do, simply for the fact that atheism carries much more of a stigma. “It does”, you ask? It may not in some middle-class, sheltered part of the world, but let’s consider the US where out of groups including “African Amerian” and “Muslim”, atheists were the least desired type of person for parents to have marrying their children (and consider that on National Public Radio, an analyst laughed about it without restraint). Consider parts of the Middle East. If I brandished my atheism as loudly as a Islamic fundamentalist may brandish their stance in Saudi Arabia, I could very well have my head chopped off, or at least face a few lashes. In Afghanistan, you can be executed for apostasy.

In a phenomena called a “marker scheme”¹, members of an in-group confer the benefits of the group based on the identification of certain cultural traits. In fact means of detecting out-group members can become (i.e. evolve as) more rigorous as out-group members learn to impersonate in-group norms. In this kind of cultural ecology, especially when theism is dominant and non-theism is not, putting your hand up as an atheist is putting up a flag to say “hey, I don’t meet the in-group criteria! Count me out!”

I’ve seen this first hand in practical terms, being denied a job as it turned out later* (thanks to a tip-off), because I was “out” as an atheist. Despite the fact that the job was government-funded, and thus not an avenue by which I’d impose my views upon anyone, I was (illegally) ear-marked as a threat to the in-group. At any rate, life moved on and aside from being a useful anecdote, this event is behind me. (I know of the case of another workplace – this time in Adelaide – where this was an explicit requirement of all employees, which according to a friend who was working at SA Unions at the time, was a common cause of complaints.)

This does all make the point that I’m not “out” to receive group-rewards, which I suspect is largely the case for ostentatious displays of religious affiliation (along with other ostentatious displays of group-affiliation – consider the various denominations of high-school clique and how much effort is put into appearing cool enough to gain reproductive benefits).

All this being said, I’d want more evidence before making a confident, positive assertion, but I suspect that it isn’t the case. The pressures against being “out” as an atheist are greater than those levelled against religious fundamentalists.

But I am out and vocal about my being an atheist. Why?

I don’t primarily identify as an atheist. I’m secular, (post?) humanist, skeptical, working class and left-wing much more than I’m atheist. Atheism is a negative – I’m a non-believer – but I don’t define myself by what I don’t believe. As Dawkins and A.C. Grayling have commented, one can be as easily defined as “afairyist” for not believing in fairies, but nobody calls themselves (or gets called) an “afairyist”.

The term “atheist” came about originally as a pejorative used by religious people and institutions to persecute and even prosecute those that questioned the existence of God. Socrates was supposed to have been charged with impiety for his skepticism, leading to him drinking the hemlock, so the story goes.

The Pythagorian school (cult?) of ancient Greek philosophy helped carry the grounds for Socrates’ persecution – an intolerance of free-thought and evidence – into Western civilization, deeply influencing Western Christianity in the process. In more recent history this played out when Spinoza was originally charged with atheism for his pantheism. But nowadays, the modern theist seems to bend over backwards to assert that he wasn’t – to call him on of their own. Perhaps he always was.

Even during the Enlightenment, it was common for those who had no belief in god, not just an ambivalence or a shoulder-shrug, to call themselves “agnostic”. “Atheist” was a dirty word. It still is. The Merriam-Webster dictionary still recognises the archaic used of the word as being synonymous with “wicked”, and it’s still spat out by religious bigots the world over.

The current Pope falls over himself to treat “atheist” as synonymous with ethical egoism and self-interest. Going as far as blaming atheism for the world’s current environmental woes. I’m not an ethical egoist, I’m a preference utilitarian. There’s a huge difference.

So why do I bang on about it? Well this is why I bang on about it. Much in the same way that GLBTs have appropriated the term “queer”, “out” atheists are appropriating the term “atheist”.

I don’t think the term can ever be synonymous with secularist, humanist or any of the other things that I positively identify as because religious people can identify as these things as well. But as long as the term “atheist” is used as a pejorative; as long as religious bigots are willing, at least in statistically significant numbers, to use “atheist” as a whip – I’m willing to subvert it.

I’ll be willing to help subvert the term until religious people, just as much as non-religious people, stop using it and instead identify my fellow atheists and I by the positive identifiers we chose for ourselves – identifiers such as humanist, secularist, working class or whatever the case may be. I’m willing to help subvert the term until it’s rendered as meaningless and non-controversial as “afairyist”, or until I’m dead.

Something people have to realise when they consider atheists self-identifying as atheist, and the religious self-identifying by whatever religion they belonged to, is that by and large the religious identified themselves as theists, and defined the godless as atheists, well before the godless took the term (or indeed any term) for themselves in any significant number. The religious started out with the power to force these identifiers, the godless did not. Religion started this ball rolling.

Things would be different now things had worked out different in the past. If atheism was never a charge, or a pejorative or a dirty word, not only do I think more godless people would be able to be open about their life stances, but I don’t think they’d be calling themselves “atheist” anymore than “afairyist”. At least not unless religion had a history of persecuting people for not believing in fairies – then you’d probably have “afairyists” by the truck load. It took religion to start this.

“Out” atheists are merely cleaning up a mess mostly of religion’s making. At least that’s why I’ve got the “Scarlet A” displayed on my blog. Maybe some of the religious would like to help (Oh wait, they are!).

I would argue that my motives for brandishing my atheism, along with the motivations of many other “out” atheists, are very much different to those of religious fundamentalists.

I hope that addresses Bron’s enquiry and then some.

~ Bruce

* I originally thought that it was my union background that turned the employer away.

¹ Alison P.D. (1992) ‘The cultural evolution of beneficent norms’, Social Forces, 71.