Publishing a work which contains contemptuous, scandalous, or insulting material relating to the Christian religion is a criminal offense, punishable by a fine or imprisonment. Note that only the Christian religion is covered by this law and that merely attacking Christianity is not blasphemy: the attack would be blasphemous only if it were contemptuous or insulting.

(New Hart’s Rules, 2005)

Which is to say that any attack is at least tantamount to blasphemy, contempt or insult being as easy to conjure, and as hard to dismiss as an unfalsifiable Freudian diagnosis.

I also don’t like the fact that blasphemy is lumped in the same section as racial hatred. A smear by association – I don’t, as a blasphemer, think it fair to lump me or anyone else with the same tolerant disposition towards race, with bigots.

And at the very least, the discrimination inherent in making a special case for protecting Christianity alone demonstrates that the law isn’t interested in equality. By all means, report the law (actually abolished in the UK in 2008 – after this edition of Hart’s Rules was published), but the unnecessary value judgements are something I can do without.

Oh, and on that part of Western Christianity where you’ll find a long anti-Semitic streak, I’ve left a great big, fat, hot, steaming metaphorical turd. Of course the flies were already there before I metaphorically passed my bowels, being attracted to the scent of a thousand and one shitty Passion plays, Mel Gibson’s included.

I simply shat in what was already a latrine.

I hold the original charge of Deicide in contempt. I hold the concept of The Mark of Cain in contempt, and not just the Jew-hating interpretations.

Contempt!

~ Bruce

It’s mostly been research so far, clarifying and expanding up what I’ve already collected over the past few years. A couple of trial run versions of the first part, or at least the better part of it, have gone well, although I’m discarding them.

The practice runs to get into the swing of things that they are.

The “swing” I’m trying to get into is to maintain the technical content, but to write in a more literary fashion. The book isn’t a manual and I don’t want it to feel like one.

Each rehearsal of the first part has increasingly moved toward a literary feel, but without losing any technical content and I think the first part proper is ready to write – which is where I intended to be by this time of year.

Work on the book from this point onward is largely a case of “knocking them down”, the “setting them up” being mostly complete. (I say “mostly”, you never know when some idea will pop into your head over the course of a year, that will demand further inquiry).

This is where I can see the next waypoint more clearly; the first draft of the opening chapters.

Which is where I’ll want to put some of my work past a few trusted people.

In September I’ll produce a .pdf file of the first draft of the first part. I want to distribute this to a few people to get their feedback.

The kind of reviewers I’m looking for fall into any number of categories, such as…

Established. A fanciful expectation? All I mean by this is “published”. It could be a few articles written for a small Australian literary journal or the online equivalent. It could be that you’re an established blogger – by which I mean PZ Myers. Okay, now I am getting my hopes up a bit high, but you get the point.

“Community types”. Those within humanist, atheist, skeptic or progressive communities – specifically those who have been active and have a profile within the community. Say long-time regulars at the AFA forums, speakers from local-level events, organisation officials, niche podcasters and so-on.

Academics. Busy people of course.

I’ve had some correspondence with academics on matters the book will cover. Although it feels there’s something in asking them to read my manuscript along the lines of asking them to mark my work – something they usually already have more than enough of.

Any such participation would be appreciated, even if it were limited, and I wouldn’t be too put out if I didn’t get any such support at this stage. (Though it would be nice if ultimately I could get someone like Richard Holloway to have a read of the manuscript).

Long-time blogospheric dwellers. What would this blog have been without other bloggers, and regular readers? Those who’ve been long-time participants in discussion here (those at least who haven’t made the spam filter list) are sought. Those like I’ve got to know as regulars at sites like the late GrodsCorp are sought. (Now if only AV of Five Public Opinions would pop his head up again – for that matter DQ of Silently Speaking as well).

None of the standard out-groupings apply. I doesn’t particularly worry me that any given trial reader may be Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, atheist or one of the Jains. If any given Hare Krishna gets turned down, it’s because the over-arching criteria – safety – isn’t being met: either they aren’t established writers etc. or I just don’t know them well enough. A mix is preferable, but at this stage I’m keeping my material well within a safety bubble, so that comes first.

Now here’s the gist. I don’t want anyone going off and advocating on my behalf to the PZ Myers and Friendly Atheists of the Internet – yet. (Although I’m quite happy to have been Pharyngulated earlier this year).

Perhaps at some later stage (like next year), the higher profile writers can be nagged with a “hey, you’ve just got to read this manuscript, it’s awesome!”, but that’s contingent on it being received as “awesome” to begin with.

This early in the project, I’m asking those who’ve volunteered their time to see if the opening chapters “hook” them. Maintaining a steady pace without meandering, especially while outlining my methodology in sufficient detail, is likely to be the biggest hurdle in maintaining reader interest in the entire book. Seeing if people feel enticed to read on beyond that is crucial.

Breaking things down into stages also provides a polite avenue for people to opt out of further manuscript reading should other tasks arrive that they deem more deserving of their attention. I’m not entitled to expect that volunteer readers stay on for the whole project, and I don’t.

I don’t take people’s help for granted – I don’t want them to feel imposed upon.

So if you are interested (even if a bit semi-committal about it) and you want in on the reading of the first draft of the first few chapters (introduction, rationale, assumptions and methodology etc.), pop a comment below indicating your interest. I’ll get back to you via the email address that you use to submit your comment ASAP (which can take a while of late), or by other means if we already have other lines of communication.

Thanks for your consideration thus far.

~ Bruce

* “The Book” being Human in a Warped Mirror (working title) – a book about the misrepresentation of atheists. Think of it as my attempt at Orientalism for religious representations of godlessness, albeit from an evolutionary perspective.

(Picture Source: a reader from Le Livre (The Book) by Octave Uzanne, 1880).

And while you’ve never been in the position to actually experience on the receiving end, the impact wrought upon those atheists and other Others – those more vulnerable than you ever were – you’ve helped people. You really have.

You’ve got a good reputation, maybe even a legacy.

You have fans. Loyal fans. Tribal fans.

For most of your life, you’ve had it said that you’re a nice individual. Admittedly, not from pitchfork-wielding types, but at least from progressives. This matters to you. You’re a progressive.

This is in essence, what you see when you look back at your life. It’s what you pride yourself on because frankly, it’s all you have!

Things change.

The world around you changes.

Things become a bit more open on the scene. Either owing to the collapse of divisions between class, or creed or international borders or whatever, more players come onto the board.

New grounds emerge where you have no history. No legacy.

Many of these new players are seeing you for the first time. Many have never had the benefit of your legacy.

Many have nothing to thank you for and no track record by which to judge you as being nice. Many have no reason to even consider you at all – if they need something that you provide, they’ve long since been able to do without you providing it.

They can provide for themselves, even if cooperation may seem at first glances to be desirable.

Imagine, not that it should be hard, that you are caught in some internecine war of words with other prominent atheists. Imagine that you don’t chose your words carefully. Imagine that it’s not the tone that’s the problem – you’re nice after all – but the substance that people are questioning.

Allegedly a trimmed quote here, supposedly an out of context citation there and a string of complaints that you’re committing the bare assertion fallacy when levelling charges against your opponent.

Pish! Your atheist interlocutor is guilty of X! And all your followers, all of those grateful for your years of service to the cause, know it’s true.

Everyone knows! Don’t be silly.

Why would someone like you lead people astray? How could someone like you lead people astray?

You’re the great Mr/Mrs Nice! You wouldn’t have got the reputation if you were so unpleasant as to make spurious accusations!

But then one of these new sorts comes along. One from over the back fence in a part of the now interconnected community that you’ve never established yourself in. One of these new sorts that you don’t have a track record with.

They allege that in this spat match of yours, that one of your accusations has overshot its mark and landed square in your new neighbour’s lap. They aren’t at all happy about it.

Your accusation, overshooting its mark, has been instrumental in establishing a stereotype “over the fence”. A stereotype that allegedly smears atheists as being guilty of whatever it is you’re accusing your political opponents of.

How do you deal with this?

Do you cite your track record as the great Mr/Mrs Nice? Do you cite all the things you’ve done for the cause, albeit not in a way that has effected your new neighbour?

Do you expect them to recognise your contribution and your quality of character?

What do you do when they add you to their list of people who haven’t helped, but have caused them harm? What do you do when you’re effectively added to the list of Hagees, Robertsons and Falwells of their part of the world – all of those who’ve birthed pejorative myths about the godless?

This incident, this overshooting the mark and “over the fence” is the first interaction you’ve had with these particular atheists.

Do you expect people to fall into line, do you pretend that your behaviour isn’t in question, do you give excuses, do you give a non-apology or do you admit that you screwed up and set about fixing the damage?

Or do you just not give a shit anymore? Or did you ever give a shit in the first place? Was it all about your own little kingdom, and your own grandiose reputation all along?

So much for Mr/Mrs Nice if that’s the case!

~ Bruce

The only two issues I anticipate are the licensing of the software, in the future, and how my writing will be formatted when uploaded to the blog. Will it contain awful code, causing paragraphs to be mishandled?

Time to see.

~ Bruce

Update: Oh, this is so much nicer. Thanks for the tip, Sean.

For one, the old, casual computer lab is being morphed into a more suitable writing environment. There is a new computer in the collection from which I am typing this now. It’s a notebook that’s dedicated to writing – no games, no encoding of media, no endless Firefox tabs!

And if all goes to plan, I’ll be able to upload this post to my blog directly from Open Office, which I find a far more suitable writing tool than the interface provided by WordPress.

So let’s see how it goes!

~ Bruce

Update: It seems that WordPress, or at least the Open Office add-on I’m using, doesn’t handle paragraphs very well!

It doesn’t matter which one specifically because there’s a truckload of each variety. If you’ve followed the accommodationist-versus-whateverist debate for any length of time, or merely seen the noise surrounding Mooney and Kirschbaum’s Unscientific America, you know what I’m talking about.

It is painful to watch and the spectacle seems perpetual.

I’ll make one of those apparently obligatory qualifiers. I’m not for example, okay with the names PZ Myers used to describe Michael Ruse. Even if I don’t like Ruse’s work one dot.

Heck, I probably shouldn’t call Geert Wilders supporters “loons”, or members of the Tea Party movement “tea baggers”. It’s considerably milder than PZ on Ruse, but all the same a vice I’ve probably got to get under control. Although at least some name calling isn’t beyond the pale – would you bristle if I called Mussolini a fascist?

This whole be nice fundamentalism has me worried.

There are seemingly two camps in the “be nice” school of thought. Those that argue that being nice is some kind of categorical imperative that we all have to follow in order to get our message across to the anti-vaccination crowd, the creationists and the like. I’ve already taken a swing at this camp before, so I’ll not labour on that too much this time around.

Then there’s the be “nice because it’s moral to be nice” crowd. Again, like it’s some kind of categorical imperative wherein nice is synonymous with moral.

To be blunt, I think this camp is incredibly dangerous. For reasons similar to that of the other camp – namely that it sets one standard for atheists/skeptics/humanists and another for our interlocutors – but also for matters of ethics.

My objection becomes clearer through the juxtaposition of two thought experiments.

Thought Experiment #1

Your neighbour, a friend who you’ve known for years and a valued, supportive, kind individual who has brought much well-being to the world, drops by for a coffee. They ask for a teaspoon of sugar and as it happens you have two jars over by the coffee mugs where they can’t see you spoon the contents into their drink. One container has sugar, while the other contains a flavourless, odorless poison that will cause your neighbour to die in excruciating agony over the next few days, with no hope of medical intervention.

The sugar is the nice option. The poison is the nasty option. Which option is the more moral?

…and…

Thought Experiment #2

You live in a dystopian society near a concentration camp that regularly puts people to death at an industrial capacity. You are a member of a secret resistance in regular contact with the totalitarian authorities. The head of the concentration camp drops in for a coffee while on his way to order a mass execution, which if it takes place on time will foil a planned mass escape that you are aware of. Your guest asks for a teaspoon of sugar and as it happens you have two jars over by the coffee mugs where they can’t see you spoon the contents into their drink. One container has sugar, while the other contain a flavourless, odorless poison that will cause the camp leader to die in excruciating agony over the next few days, but will provide the necessary delay to ensure the success of the mass escape bid (even if resulting in your own execution).

The sugar is the nice option. The poison is the nasty option. Which option is the more moral?

I could press the point further, but all I need to do is show that automatically equating nice with moral is not unproblematic. As the juxtaposition shows, it’s incredibly problematic.

It doesn’t require such extreme examples – it’s the logic of it that I’m getting at.

And for any humanist with an interest in ethics, this kind of thing should be grist for the mill. Discussing the ethics of warfare critically requires this kind of thinking. Discussing the ethics of self-defence requires this kind of thinking. Much of geopolitics requires this kind of thinking. Critical discussion of euthanasia requires this kind of thinking. And on and on and on the list goes.

Indeed, the logic of the problem remains the same even when you lower the stakes down to resemble the more mundane disputes skeptics, humanists and affirmative atheists find themselves embroiled in. I’ve only amped up the terms to test the notion the way a programmer tests their code with extreme values.

Aside from the problem of the logic of this kind of absolutist argument, you have to ask why it’s being preached in such a paternal and simplistic manner. Especially from self-avowed humanists – for any humanist who’s earned the right to lecture the rest of us, this kind of problem should be obvious. It’s not something that a considerate humanist should run rough-shod over.

Like I said, it’s painful to watch. A least if you care about these kinds of things it is.

And why? Why is this happening?

I’m reminded of Daniel Dennett’s discussion of models of the evolution of cooperation in Freedom Evolves, where an evolutionary arms race between freeloaders and cooperators takes place. A population originally made up of cooperators plays host to a new, freeloading mutant that doesn’t pay its dues. Yet the freeloader receives the full benefits of group membership – enabling it through a net increase in benefits to proliferate faster than the cooperators. Over generations this alters the make-up of the population up until there aren’t enough cooperators for the freeloaders to sponge off of.

With more complicated agents, freeloader-detection exists amongst cooperators to help prevent freeloaders’ proliferation-via-mooching, while the evolution of cooperator-mimicry by freeloaders allows them to proliferate by side-stepping detection. Better detection methods by cooperators are in turn positively selected for when they manage to detect this mimicry, which in turn positively selects for even more advanced mimicry to side-step the more advanced detection. The arms race goes on and on, with freeloaders evolving newer and better ways to pass themselves off as cooperators, while cooperators evolve ever more capable freeloader-detection measures.

There are times when the “be nice because it’s ethical” camp reminds me of cooperator-mimicry. It has the free-loader quality of less energy expenditure by cooperators – as we’ve seen above, simply treating “nice” as synonymous with “ethical” isn’t exactly an expensive contribution to a community that values the thoughtful discussion of ethics. It’s not exactly paying one’s dues. Yet the upshot of this cheap approach may be very beneficial in terms of acquiring in-group benefits, if appearances don’t deceive.

If a nice Colgate smile, simple platitudes about manners and a lack of consideration can guarantee success amongst humanists, then frankly, organised humanism may well be screwed. Or at least partially screwed.

And let’s be serious. The kind of simplistic attitude we are talking about does have meaningful consequences in the world – what’s “nice” about euthanasia or abortion?

Do you really care about this stuff?

Humanists, skeptics and assorted quasi-allied philosophical dispositions need to ratchet up their freeloader-detection, and a heuristic I’d like to nominate is the recognition of the treatment of “nice” as synonymous with “moral” or “ethical” as a freeloader warning sign. Update that into your social virus-checker database!

Letting this one pass may do the careers of those non-threatening, Hollywood-white-smile types a world of wonder, but is that really the point of the whole exercise?

~ Bruce

I don’t think it’s run its course quite yet, but I can see the end in sight.

It never really had much in the way of a distinct purpose; a few guiding principles and a vague motivation, but no raison d’être.

My values are changing.

I look back at some of the things I was schizotypally whimsical about and wonder what on earth I was doing. Or at least I know why I did what I did but can no longer relate to it.

I’m not diving into anal retentive sub-editorialising, at least not yet. And don’t get me wrong, I haven’t suddenly jumped on board with common sense about these things – I’m still a bit weird.

I am however enjoying word-crafting somewhat more than usual – something that may not be apparent because so much of the tinkering has been done away from cyberspace.

I have drafts of a number of posts, printed out and sitting on my coffee table. I’ve always read better from paper than from the screen, but I’ve never been inclined to make the effort. These draft posts (this post not being one of them) won’t see publication until I’ve had a better look at them.

The drafts have been piling up faster than I’ve been publishing them.

What to do?

Spontaneous, slack-edited posts will continue for a while but at an ever decreasing rate. This will grind to a halt. I’m not always going to be quite so lazy just because it’s a blog.

As my attempt to write a decent manuscript moves into full-swing, my attention will be drawn away from the general topics I normally discuss even more than over the last couple of months. It’s getting really interesting on that front actually. This does mean though that the traditional inspirations for posting also will grind to something approximating a halt and the draft pile will eventually expend itself.

My writing will focus elsewhere in accordance with my new, emerging sensibilities.

My writing will have the articulated raison d’être that this blog has always lacked.

It seems to me that my writing is parting ways with this blog and ultimately for the better. I don’t see Thinkers’ Podium lasting until the end of the year.

I’ll be testing the waters elsewhere away from the blogosphere where I hope to get more polished pieces published. So what will remain?

The leftovers? An aspiring writer’s diary (a very doable prospect)? Interesting notes from the book-in-progress (some of the correspondence I’ve been having is worthy of writing about)?

There is I think something to having a blog to compliment the more traditional outlets, and part of it is the relaxed conventions.

But whatever reason I’ll have for blogging in 2011 will be at least as far as I’m concerned, different to the chaos of the last five years (good grief, I missed my fifth blogging anniversary last week). Which means that a new blog will have to be born, while I’m prepared to let Thinkers’ Podium grind to a halt.

Let the slow process of renewal begin and the silent countdown to this blog’s death commence.

~ Bruce

The implication being that you aren’t patient. That you’ve just snapped. That you’re being irrational and unfair.

“Where did that come from?”

They feign ignorance and innocence, to the particular offence and the to track record of behaviour.

They’ve asked before. It’s not like they are completely unaware.

“Was I out of line?” – that’s what they should be asking of their behaviour – a judgement call with no room for equivocation.

Instead they ask questions, the answers to which don’t quite get to the point and are guaranteed to get an answer, if answered, that won’t pose near as much threat to their ego?

“Were they offended?” – they’ll ask, as if the problem were just a matter of other people’s perspectives.

“Was I over-reacting?” – as if it were a question of proportion instead of appropriate response – when the question should have been categorical instead of a question of scale.

You get the idea.

So you answer their questions but you don’t answer them in such a straight forward manner as to enable self-deception. You use tone. “No…”, you answer – with an audible but unspoken “but” well within what they have the capacity to detect.

They’re always detecting nuance – they’re quite sensitive to the tone of your voice so you’ve done your due diligence and said as much as you are responsible for saying.

Any more than that and you’re lecturing them, which will either do their thinking for them (ultimately solving nothing) or provoking a defence (also ultimately solving nothing).

The “but” in your voice should be enough to tell them their question is based on a false premise and that they have a job to do working it out for themselves. This is a reasonable expectation.

When they obviously set over the line – perhaps not more than their three strikes worth but plain enough for all to see – you don’t reward them. If they bark orders when they don’t have a dot worth of authority, you don’t obey. If they demand answers you repeat your defiance, perhaps with a “because I said so”.

You let it be known that they have to step back over that line.

But the time comes when they’ve had more than their three strikes. When the patience you’ve extended to them that most people wouldn’t, as much as it is but finite, comes to an end.

Then the hammer falls. Then the rules have to change and you have to change them.

So you stop answering their loaded questions, nor even addressing them. You’re defiance becomes articulated, assertive and affirmative.

“Where did that come from?”, they shriek – as if it hadn’t been communicated – as if their wasn’t a long history of you patiently saying what you have to and expecting them to carry their half of the load.

In one presumptuous question born of bad faith they belittle all the patience you’ve shown them. All the consideration they’ve been shown and never really deserved, as if they’d never been the beneficiary.

If they were a friend, they’re merely an acquaintance now. You have to acknowledge this – when they disregard how you’ve done the right thing by them, they disregard your friendship.

“Where did that come from?” instead of “oh shit, I’m sorry!”

So you are left without obligation in a position where it may not be a good thing for you to continue your association, where perhaps you can sever the ties at the drop of a hat. You don’t have to burn bridges – there’s a toll booth on the bridge and you own it.

You get to set the fee. You get to turn them back.

The first toll you should extract from them is for them to acknowledge where it came from – that for things to get here things can’t have been all okay. You’ve already been coaxing them patiently in the right direction for a long time so expect them to volunteer it all.

You don’t tell them what they did wrong. They tell you. It’s been discussed already.

Spinning the truth should be treated like counterfeit currency. So you turn them back to where they came from for downplaying what they’ve done wrong. Perhaps with the understanding that they aren’t to come back – you’ve got other people crossing your bridge.

Perhaps they do this. But things don’t go back to being the way they were because you don’t have to let them be. You don’t need this shit like the way they need you.

You set the terms of any new arrangement.

Again, they act aggrieved.

“Where did that come from?”

They act entitled. Which is to say that somehow you’re obligated. You aren’t.

All of their behaviour, including the incessant “where did that come from?” lead them to this. It’s a consequence of their behaviour and oddly enough the answer to their question.

You set your terms. Maybe you’re generous or maybe you’re not – maybe you’re fair and give them no more of yourself than they deserve. They either accept them or they don’t. When they reject your terms – either out of hand or further down the track – you reject them.

“Where did that come from?”, they ask as they’ve lost another friend – another person who gave them time they weren’t entitled to to begin with.

They’ll say how people can be cruel; how the world is so unfair; how they hold themselves to a higher standard and how humanity disappoints them, or otherwise attribute their rejection to some unknown cause in a nebulous realm to which blame can be sent without return.

Anything but the fact that they’ve acted with contempt towards people they’ve owed respect and that this is what has caused their predicament. It’s their own fault, not yours, not the world’s.

So they’ll go on and cry on the shoulder of who ever else they’ve got left that will listen, asking in bad faith “where did that come from?”, “were they offended?” and “was I over-reacting?” and those few friends that they have left, will patiently listen, reply with a “but” in their voice and put up with it until the contempt has gone too far.

Then the process will repeat itself, the only unfair thing about it all being that an unfair question will continually hang over the heads of people just because they showed a bit of grace. The lonely narcissist asking the perpetual question deserving their loneliness entirely.

Wouldn’t it be nicer for all concerned if some people just grew the fuck up and took responsibility for themselves for a change?

~ Bruce

I’m sick and tired of people – usually self-identifying right-libertarians (or pseudo-libertarians if the association offends “true” libertarians) – claiming that taxation is taking their money. That it’s theft.

Bollocks.

It’s not your money. It’s the state’s money. You see that head of state printed on the note or stamped on the coin? Over wondered why it’s a crime to mint our own cash in the same currency? Yeah. Exactly.

It’s the state’s money - it’s been allocated to you in recognition of your productivity.

The real debate, if you are interested, is between the means of allocation.

• A state can, unless its constitution prohibits it, choose to allocate all of its currency via an absolutely free market. I’m not anti-market, but I’m against unregulated free market fundamentalism.
• A state can, unless its constitution prohibits it, choose to allocate all of its currency via a regulated, mixed market. I’m in this camp, although there are varying degrees and ways of mixing the marketplace.
• A state can, unless its constitution prohibits it, choose to allocate all of its currency via the state, to each according to their ability, to each according to their needs (or via any other state-based criteria not necessarily so egalitarian). I’d lean towards this option if I weren’t such a pragmatic, piecemeal revolutionary.

Claiming that “it’s my money!” – aside from being technically false in anything other than an anarchy – is most problematic in that it side-tracks people away from the discussion of how resources are allocated to the populace and the values we use to inform such policy positions.

What does “it’s my money!” tell you about the above three options? Nothing.

“It’s my money!”, by presenting a subtly extreme anarchist value as an unassailable statement of fact*, ends debate prematurely. Debate which to my mind was cut short in the 1970s – back when “a fair go” wasn’t just a jingoistic slogan – debate that we need to be having today.

Preferably this debate can be re-vivified before matters polarize further – before the debate re-ignites as a clash between bloody-minded ideology and incorrigible self-interest because people didn’t see it in their self interest to discuss the matter sooner. Or because some right-wing radical shouted “it’s my money!” and people just left it at that.

There. Glad to have that out in the open. *Big sigh*

~ Bruce

* Always a good thing to have some Hume at hand.

1. Ask “You’re an atheist? How exactly?”; **Try not to upset the atheist with your anxiety – appear calm and respectful*

If atheist = “…an atheist, but not like…”, go to 2 else go to 3;

2. Say “Oh, I know, those new atheists are so intolerant, like that [insert new atheist name] who thinks all [insert religious identifier] are [insert unsourced claim] and all the new atheists who follow them!”;

Say “I’m so glad we can be friends!”;

Assign atheist’s in-group benefits to that of [insert religious identifier] – 1;

Be sure to demonstrate an interest in their spirituality to let them know they’ll be tested again;

Have a feel good moment;

End;

3. Do not have a conniption fit;

State “But you call yourself tolerant! [Insert new atheist name] thinks all [insert religious identifier] are [insert unsourced claim]!”;

Wait for Reply with best earnest face;

Question = 0

Go to 4;

4. Either nod or shake head to pretend you are listening while maintaining earnest face;

If Question = 0 then

if Reply = “Oh, I didn’t know that! I’m sorry!”, go to 2 else

if Reply = “Do you have a source for that?”, go to 5 else

if Reply = “That contradicts where [insert new atheist name] said [X sourced claim] about some [insert religious identifier]“, go to 6 else

if Reply = “I think we’ll have to agree to disagree”, go to 10 else

if Reply = “No [Insert new atheist name] doesn’t”, go to 7 else go to 8;

If question > 0 then

if Reply = “I’m so silly. What was I thinking?”, go to 2 else

if Reply = “Do you have a source for that?”, go to 5 else

if Reply = “I think we’ll have to agree to disagree” or “just leave me the fuck alone you bigot”, go to 10 else

if Reply = “Well I’m not the one parroting unsourced rumours” or “have you even read any [insert new atheist name]“, go to 8 else go to 9;

5. Maintain earnest face – do best to mitigate patronising attitude towards them through calm;

Question = Question +1

Say “No I don’t, but do you? Everyone knows that new atheists think [insert unsourced claim]“;

Wait for Reply with best earnest face;

Go to 4;

6. Maintain earnest face and don’t start to wobble;

Question = Question +1;

Say “Well, I’m sure you think that. But I think you’re being a bit naive.”;

Wait for Reply with best earnest face;

Go to 4;

7. Maintain earnest face and don’t start to wobble;

Question = Question +1;

Say “Do you have a source for that?”;

Wait for Reply with best earnest face;

Go to 4;

8. Appeal to authority ad preferably your own but if not possible that of the Emperor’s robes will do;

Act indignant that you’ve had your integrity questioned;

Assume the posture you would when speaking to a barbarian;

Go to 9;

9. Ask yourself if you are a rationalist or relativist;

If you = “rationalist” then imply “I am a tolerant, rational [insert religious identifier here] perfectly capable of objectively criticising [insert new atheist name], not that a member of the new atheist cult like you would be able to tell!” with as much subtlety as you are willing to muster, else

if you = “relativist” then imply “I am a tolerant, post-modern [insert religious identifier here] not at all credulous to the meta-narratives of [insert new atheist name], not that a member of the new atheist cult like you would be able to tell!”" with as much subtlety as you are willing to muster;

Wait for Reply;

Go to 11;

10. Grind your teeth and fume while at the same time smiling and getting back to other tasks;

Assign atheist’s in-group benefits to that of [insert religious identifier] – [passive aggressive compensation equalling the magnitude of your spite];

End;

11. Hold your chin up to let them know you won’t be stripped of your self-respect;

If Reply = “You know the wholesale smearing a contrived out-group like “new atheists” without even a shred of evidence isn’t particularly tolerant” go to 13 else

if Reply = “What’s rational about being in a state of cognitive dissonance about the empirical evidence of your own prejudice towards “new atheists”?” go to 14 else

if Reply = “Oh jeez, somebody get Alan Sokal in here, PLEASE!” go to 15 else go to 16;

12. Intensity = Intensity + 1;

Wave arms and raise voice at level = Intensity;

Say “[Random non-sequitur from your 'Big Bad Book of New Atheists - Guide To The Despicable']“

If Intensity < 666 then go to 12 else go to 16;

13. Say “I”M INTOLERANT!!! BUT [Insert new atheist name] THINKS ALL [insert religious identifier] ARE [insert unsourced claim]! WHAT ABOUT HIM?!?!”;

Go to 12;

14. Say “I AM BEING RATIONAL! I’M A RATIONALIST! RATIONALISM WAS BUILT ON THE [insert religious identifier] TRADITION!”;

Go to 12;

15. Say “CREDULOUS, INTOLERANT POMOPHOBE!”;

Go to 12;

16. Fume;

Cease communication with the obvious bad person in all of this;

Assign atheist’s in-group benefits to that of [insert religious identifier] – [passive aggressive compensation equalling the magnitude of your spite];

End;

For me, offence is an inevitable side effect of challenging sectarian power, not the goal itself. And therein lies the problem for me – like others in a democracy, I have the right to challenge sectarian political power by way of argument and the concept of blasphemy is a good way of stripping me of that right.

My ends may differ from the “offensive” atheists out there who are just in it for the laughs (whoever they are), but like them I don’t see “I’m offended” as a legitimate rejoinder.

So when some “high road” preacher from our side of the fence starts waiving their finger and telling us to take the high road; telling us what not to do; telling us atheists how they are embarrassed by our blasphemy, I’m not at all impressed.

Paul Kurtz, now former chair emeritus of the Center for Inquiry has been in the spotlight, or perhaps hogging the limelight, of late. Kurtz, seemingly increasingly, belongs to the take-the-highroad camp. Objecting to the Center for Inquiry’s Blasphemy Day for not reaching his (increasingly?) lofty ideals.

Similarly, Edd Doerr, former head of The American Humanist Association last December waved his finger at the proliferation of billboard campaigns. Specifically the ads claiming of all things (shock horror), that you can be good without God. Why? Because “divisive ad campaigns invite blowback and stimulate both ends of the religious spectrum to engage in fruitless bouts of name-calling and invective”.

Yes. Doerr is telling us that pointing out that ethics are a product of humanity, a view that religious humanists and godless humanists have in common, is divisive.

There was no invective at all in the Good without God billboard campaign. There was no invective stemming from the campaign. The only invective surrounding it was that directed at it.

Doerr is just taking the be-nice-to-religious-people-as-categorical-imperative to its logical conclusion; pandering to religious bigotry held dear by bigoted religious people. “How dare they say that morals are human in origin and that godless heathens can therefore be as moral as religious people!”

This is why I take more issue with this kind of thing from the Doerrs and the Kurtzs in the world of the godless than I do with the admittedly acquired taste works of the likes of PZ Myers.

Hyperbolic rhetoric at least to some degree risks inflammatory polarisation, but it doesn’t guarantee that anything bad will come of it. This is as strong an argument as the “I’m offended” or “play nice” types can make against the object of their chagrin. It’s not a necessary, nor obvious outcome that their fears, real or contrived, are realised.

On the other hand, it’s a necessary outcome of the “be better” approach that equality is devalued? How so?

There is a minimum standard for intelligent, civic conduct that one can expect from people speaking from a position of privilege. Indeed, I think there are two tiers of minimum conduct – that required to be taken seriously (the one more relevant to this discussion) and another for lawful minimum conduct (e.g. using a media pulpit to call for the assassination of a democratically elected head of state falls below this tier). (For some idea of scope, I consider Myers’ work above the first tier, while Pat Condell’s sillier posts and Thunderf00t’s recent failings I’d place below the first tier but above the second.)

In an equal, pluralistic democracy these standards are the same regardless of what race, gender or religious tradition you hail from. This is where Kurtz and Doerr run into trouble.

Their finger waiving necessarily raises the first tier (behaviour to expect) for atheists, but not for others. This is contrary to the cause of atheist equality, and contrary to the cause of equality in general.

If it weren’t a categorical imperative, if Kurtz and Doerr confined their high expectations to specific office as a matter of pragmatism, I wouldn’t be writing this. But they don’t.

Doerr painted the ‘Good without God’ billboard campaign as intrinsically at odds with secular humanist values. It was practically the secular humanist equivalent of a Papal decree.

And Kurtz takes his “be nicer than you actually are, and nicer than the norm, to get people to merely accept you as normal” schick on the road, selling it to the godless masses.

Part of this equality thing that perhaps more than anything else is supposed to be a part of our mandate, is that we all get a bit of leeway for difference in personality given our differences in nature and nurture; a bit of leeway for difference in approach given the different ways we can be received and a margin for human error – a margin the same as that given to anyone else with the same opportunities, regardless of religiosity. Jokes can fall flat. Tone can be off.

It’s not ideal to screw-up – that much is self-evident -  but within reason it’s not something for people to be made to feel ashamed about – again, regardless of religiosity.

If you aren’t on board with atheists being able to screw up as much as anyone else, then you aren’t on board with equality.

The neglect of this very serious point by Kurtz and Doerr is to my mind a far worse infraction, far more substantial than any of PZ Myers’ more misjudged rhetoric. To the extent that I consider it beneath the first tier I talked about – although not beneath the second, lower tier. This error of judgement may not be as colourful, or brazen, or apparently as distasteful as the worst that Pat Condell has to offer, but to me the tiers I talk of aren’t a matter of taste.

I find Kurtz and Doerr’s take on acceptable conduct amongst the godless, to the stated aim of equality, to be as wrong and self-contradictory as Pat Condell’s arguments about women’s clothing and freedom of movement across borders is to his stated aim of freedom. They are just logically, terminally at odds with their stated civic goals.

***

Often, by those of the “mandatory high road” persuasion, much is made of the alliances the godless have, or could have, with people of moderate religions. Indeed, that’s pretty much it – “we won’t win any religious allies” (I paraphrase) – as if that was an argument in and of itself.

Religious allies aren’t necessarily wanted

Let me say that it is by no means self-evident that in a pluralistic democracy, that all persuasions are cherished equally by all people. There is no place for forced affection in a tolerant, multicultural society.

To those of a multicultural persuasion who may disagree, let me put a thought experiment by you. I’m a vegetarian. Would you take away my multicultural street-cred if I didn’t sit around in a kebab shop, eating lamb kebabs? No. There you go – a clear, if simple example. Inter-cultural affection is a multicultural ideal, but not a multicultural necessity.

Similarly, while I would never advocate tearing down a Jeffersonian wall (indeed like Christopher Hitchens, I say “build up that wall”) to tell Christians not to wear their crosses in public and so on. This is me being tolerant, but it doesn’t require that I have a relationship with a single religious person – as it happens I do have relationships with religious people, but in as far as a tolerant pluralism is concerned, this is incidental.

So let me just say that in and of itself, losing potential religious contacts isn’t a deal breaker because it is not self-evident that we want to have relationships with religious people.

But it’s worse, the line that we have to behave like angels to keep our religious friends. Worse because it plays to concepts both naive and sinister about “having the numbers”.

Religious allies aren’t necessarily needed

I always get a kick when Chris Mooney calls people politically naive for not trying to brook alliances with religious progressives. Really, I do. It’s so… Naive.

The trade union movement in Australia used to, and to some extent has a fixation on “having the numbers”. Indeed, this is where the cynical end to an obsession with head counting comes in – branch stacking (oh how that’s killed truly intelligent debate in the Labor party).

But naivety – if you’re a young intern unionist in Australia, you’ll probably be lucky enough to come across some emerging political wisdom in union education that’s being taught these days. Aside from a recognition of where an obsession about “having the numbers” can lead you, it’s being realised that “having the numbers” isn’t as necessary to political success as common wisdom may have you believe.

The battle in South Australia (pre-WorkChoices) to have the right for casual workers to transition to permanent part-time contracts after sufficient periods of employment, amongst other examples, showed how a union movement without the numbers and without help from government, could still effect change.

Ask yourself – why does the Christian Right punch so much above its weight in both terms of money* and head-count?

Treating the existence of religious allies as self-evidently necessary to political success is naive.

Religious allies aren’t necessarily going to be attracted by a softly-softly approach

You know how the null hypothesis works when you are testing for difference between two groups of data? That without evidence to the contrary, no difference is assumed?

Take two groups – success in bringing religious people on board by method – high risk straight talking versus used car sales-man.

Until people telling me that one approach is better than the other present some actual hard data, guess what I’m going to assume?

Yes. Being straight talking can risk provoking the resolution of cognitive dissonance through the dismissal of data – “that mean atheist was rude to me! I don’t have to consider what they said!”

Why is it so hard to consider that other approaches may result in similar dismissal – “that friendly atheist is being sneaky! I don’t have to consider what they said!”

Please, don’t tell me you aren’t aware of poisoning of the well of both stripes. Please don’t tell me that there aren’t manifold means of ego defence. It’s not self-evident that one approach is inherently better than the other.

And for pity’s sake, even when cognitive dissonance isn’t an issue, I’ve more respect for my religious friends than to try to crawl up their arse in the first place.

Potential religious allies aren’t necessarily in line with our stated interests

Let’s take a relatively non-contentious issue amongst humanists – freedom of expression is a universal human right.

Consider some of our prospective religious allies.

Certainly not the Christian right – they’re unlikely to touch us with a barge-pole even if what we are proposing is ultimately in their own best interests.

Broadly, we’re left with religious moderates and the evangelical left.

Whittle that down further – who of the moderate and evangelical left are we most likely to attract by shunning blasphemy – the Pythonesque “I reserve the right to…”, but not actually be able to carry through with the act?

I reserve the right to blaspheme, even though… – It’s “pure Monty Python!”

Sure, amongst those you can attract, you’ll still attract those who take freedom of expression seriously, but perhaps this is using a magnet when a sieve is the appropriate tool.

It may be the case that you don’t want people on board who are on board with anti-blasphemy laws. Otherwise you could be inviting internecine spats like that seen above in The Life of Brian.

Please don’t tell me that you’re unaware of religious moderates who support the banning of blasphemy as a hate-crime. Indeed, with reference to the mentioned tiers of acceptable engagement, I view anti-blasphemy laws as below the second, lower tier – I consider anti-blasphemy laws a crime against humanity, and those who enact them as human rights violators – as criminals, if not in law then in principle.

It’s not necessarily the case that religious allies attracted by a given tact are going to be assets to the cause.

Even when in discreet cases religious allies are wanted, and are needed, it doesn’t necessarily fall to the godless to court them

Maybe if you were an ex-Soviet or Maoist atheist looking to reconcile with Russian Orthodox or Chinese Christians, you’d have your work set out for you. But…

How many of the godless people in humanist or even (ahem) “New Atheist” organisations today, have or have had membership in an organisation that is responsible for building the rift that exists between the religious and the non-religious?

I’ll be blunt. The Roman Catholic Church has a responsibility to build a bridge with atheists. The Church of England has a responsibility to build a bridge with atheists. I don’t have a responsibility to bridge the gap, nor do many, many, many other godless people.

And for pity’s sake, the churches most likely to be responsible actually have more of the material means to do the job! Why the hell am I being hit up for my labour?

You want an alliance to fight for environmental policy? Fine. Tell the CoE and the Roman Catholic church to overcome the obstacles they’ve engineered to make it happen! Stop this pretentious, false mea culpa that it’s the godless who are getting in the way of things.

For the many, many people like me, expecting us to make the effort to meet with the very churches with a history of creating the division in the first place is an imposture. It’s a yoke. Keep the damn thing – and don’t you dare call me divisive and expect me to treat you like a rational, honest, fair human being, just because I don’t don that yoke. I do associate with religious people of my own choosing, and if I don a yoke to do so, it’s because I’ve put it on myself.

And here’s the political risk. It may seem politically expedient to make an effort to woo religious people – there may very well be utility in any given circumstance to doing this. You may very win a political battle that you otherwise wouldn’t have. But to expect that this is where the consequences end is incredibly short-sighted.

There’s already a pervasive attitude that atheists are responsible for divisiveness, despite that the whopping great trench that’s been dug between us and the religious has been there for years and that we did little to dig it. This state of affairs is there, waiting to be inherited. It’s not our burden to inherit.

As with the more attractive trappings of religious tradition – the architecture, the private art collections, the ceremony – the division is the heritage of people who choose to affiliate with the organisations that caused it.

Expecting the godless to just shoulder more than our share of the burden, without acknowledging that it’s not actually our burden to bear, is to my mind setting up an incredibly dangerous political precedent. If we are to do this at all, it should not be before it is widely acknowledged by the leaders of the very churches that dug the stinking great trench, that the participation of the godless (or at least the innocent majority) is an act of grace.

Indeed, so huge is such a political loss, that I think it quite clear that there are numerous political goals that are worth sacrificing in order not to lose just this one. And this is even before considering that publicly telling atheists that they need to be nicer plays to the impression that atheists are less nice than other people – which is hardly an established fact.

Hence, even if religious allies can be useful for some other political goal, I don’t think it necessarily worth while going to the effort to bring them on board. Depending on the consequences of any given tactic, it could very well cost far too much.

***

A few last words

Keep in mind – I’m not some kind of atheist separatist. I’m simply criticising a number of the unspoken and seemingly unexamined assumptions naively propagated each time we atheists are told that playing nice won’t win religious friends. I’m criticising the notion that this is the way that atheists in general, not atheists in specific roles, should conduct themselves.

I’m not averse to being nice to people. I’m not averse to tone. I’m not averse to political timing. I’m certainly not averse to religious people.

I’m not averse to the idea that at least where relevant circumstances permit (China perhaps – perhaps even more-so in dealing with atheists of certain dispositions?), religious people may very well reasonably share all the same concerns I’ve expressed above in as far as their conduct towards the godless is concerned.

I’m not blaming anyone for the state of affairs – it was like this before any of us could have an effect on the situation. The situation is inherited – what parts of the situation being inherited determined by which in-group benefits (and out-group penalties) we opt for or otherwise inherit.

I’m not averse to acknowledging the many contributions that Kurtz and Doerr (and others) have made to humanism, skepticism and the cause of the godless over the length of their careers. I have no ill will (nor indeed much in the way of a crystallised opinion) about Kurtz and Doerr as people themselves – although I’ll admit that Doerr’s frankly misleading own-goal about the ‘Good without God’ billboards has sent my opinion of him in a downward trajectory.

I’m not averse to subjecting the arguments of those on “the other side” to the same scrutiny I’m subjecting those of the likes of Kurtz and Doerr to – I think my treatment of Draw Muhammad Day over the past month bares this out.

What I am averse to is being told along with others that we shouldn’t call a spade a spade, or a dickhead a dickhead, on the grounds that it will cost us religious allies thus necessarily leading to political failure – all with little more justification than that. It is by no means well-known that this is the case – it is by no means obvious – whatever happened to a bit of epistemological humility amongst skeptics?

I may choose to use tact in order to get a point across, but I will not contort my logic merely because my views may be unwelcome. I will not put an issue on the back burner merely because a group of prospective allies don’t want to deal with it – one needs to argue their political method a lot better than that to win me over. Prospective leaders of any ilk need to argue their case a lot better if they expect me to in any way support them.

I find the “play nice” argument unconvincing, and the paternalistic manner in which it is usually conveyed as supposedly obvious truth to be entirely unhelpful.

~ Bruce

* Do you really see corporate money being behind creationism, or RU486 bans? Where’s the profit?

It wasn’t easy and like my many attempts, it only lasted a few weeks. As I’ve mentioned before on this blog, eating meat is something that’s normalised in me.

The primary reason – always the primary reason – has been that of the suffering of animals.

I’ve been told a lot of dodgy-to-not-so-convincing reasons such as the claim that it will increase your lifespan.

The World Health Organisation is the source usually cited for the studies that saw higher mortality amongst meat eaters than vegetarians. But, what people citing this source – apparently not reading or not understanding it – don’t tell you is that the vegetarian groups in the earlier study had a lower incidence of smoking and once this was accounted for in further studies, the morbidity difference between lacto-ovo vegetarians and meat-eaters went away. In fact the vegans scored significantly worse.

Then there’s the water and fossil fuel usage. I’m not adverse to the idea that not eating meat in general may leave a smaller carbon footprint, or save water. But I’m yet to be shown a convincing study by the advocates. The problem with research I’ve been shown is usually that fuel/water usage between vegetarian and meat-sources are counted differently (e.g. double counting for meat produce, or omitting certain uses from vegetable produce while counting it for meat produce).

Although, I’m not prepared to go into great length looking into the veracity of either when even if true, it wouldn’t change my behaviour. My vegetarianism doesn’t hinge on the truth of  either of these kinds of arguments.

Now if it’s not hard enough for me just to check my food sources while at the same time resisting the urges that were inculcated into me as a child, people have to go and make it harder by being dicks.

There’s a phrase of Bertrand Russell’s that is apt, “conventional people are roused to fury by departure from convention, largely because they regard such departure as a criticism of themselves.” Although to be more precise, I’d go with “roused to resolve cognitive dissonance through ego defence”.

I’m not talking about the likes of a friend that said “I’m going to give you so much shit from now on!” There’s no mental gymnastics there – just humour and an understated, implicit admission of moral failure.

It’s pretence and moral indignation that’s the problem.

People most often like to think of themselves as being good. The observation that I’m avoiding doing something bad, something that they’re themselves doing, causes dissonance with my meat-eating acquaintances’ self-image of goodness.

I’m not judgemental about it. I don’t jump down anyone’s throat. The only time I snap at anyone about the issue is when they’re already digging away at me.

It’s not jumping down someone’s throat if they started it.

1998 (I paraphrase).

Cousin: “Would you like a metwurst sandwich?”

Me: “Geez! I’m a vegetarian! I only told you again a couple of hours ago.”

Cousin: “I CAN EAT WHAT I WANT!”

Notice how I’m supposed to be oppressing my cousin?

I didn’t tell anyone what to eat in that conversation. I was newly vegetarian, committed but struggling, had communicated the fact already and was then thoughtlessly offered something that he knew I’d find tasty.

I’ve found it amazing the level of mental gymnastics some people will go to blame me for something because of my vegetarianism, even if it hasn’t happened yet.

Last Christmas (again, I paraphrase).

Mother: “I hope you’re not going to ruin Christmas for everyone else with this [vegetarianism].”

My not eating meat will ruin Christmas for everyone else? Even though I’d already pre-cooked my own Christmas lunch and tea to save any hassles.

And if it’s not a big enough pain in the arse that they’ve got these kind of issues, it’s the mental gymnastics they go through to convince themselves that they aren’t going through mental gymnastics.

“I’m just trying to be a good host!”

“I forgot you’re a vegetarian!” (An odd thing to forget given how obsessed and neurotic they can be about it, no?)

It’s the ones who are the “forgetful good hosts” that needle you about it the most. Needle, needle, needle.

They’ll serve something up with a big fat hot steak or piece of pork with crackling smacked on the plate, hover it in front of your face and then proceed to inquire as if to be considerate.

Of course they know this kind of thing is attractive to me, they know that I don’t want to be offered meat and rather than ask if I don’t want it, they’ll ask why I don’t want it and if I’m sure I don’t want it, all in the tone of the most conscientious host. All while hovering the plate in front of my face.

The context always shows they should know how to behave better. You’ve already talked to them about it within the past few hours. They spend time trying to “serve” you, all why others are waiting hungrily. And why ask why you don’t want it if they don’t already know you don’t want it?

Odd behaviour for the conscientious or for anyone who supposedly doesn’t realise that you don’t eat meat.

I mentioned some of the justifications I don’t use to inform my vegetarianism – health and environmental reasons.

Yet surprisingly after the umpteenth time I’ve told them “no”, they can still pull the straw man rejoinder like…

“It won’t kill you!”

…or…

“It won’t cause that much environmental damage. Just one.”

Of course, I don’t repeat my reasons for being a vegetarian ad infinitum to people who behave like this. What’s the point of expressing a moral justification if your interlocutor isn’t interested in listening.

But it’s not like I haven’t tried – it’s just that I’ve learned that it’s futile so I’ve stopped.

And oh, the sheer hypocrisy of asking why, when they don’t care why! The disingenuous questions aren’t much fun.

I no longer justify my choice if they ask me to explain. The dialogue is closed.

And why not? It is my body after all.

Why am I even having to have these discussions? Well, we know the answer of course – my choice through no intent on my part reflects on them in a way that they aren’t willing to admit to themselves.

But that’s their problem. I shouldn’t have to hear about it. I’m sick of hearing about it.

It makes being a vegetarian that much more difficult on top of everything else.

There’s only so much time before I grow so tired of this that I’ll stop being the passive party and I’ll actively use their own neurosis on the issue against them.

The discomfort they feel now at my being a vegetarian – the imagined persecution through imagined ruined public holidays and imagined chastisings – will seem insignificant when I play the double jeopardy card and actually do what I’ve been accused of doing. Namely chastise and ruin public holidays.

It’s either that or just walking away when it gets too much. Ultimately, I can afford to burn these bridges if my stock in these relationships falls so low.

I’ve been vegetarian for over half a year now and things are staying that way.

~ Bruce

(Photo source: Davide Vizzini)

I mentioned Christian nationalist material posted for Everybody Draw Muhammad Day in my last post. If it’s too much to bear, turn away now.

This was taken from the ‘Everybody Draw Muhammad Day’ event page. The ‘Everybody Draw Muhammad Day’ Facebook group still isn’t available.

The people organising the event page have found themselves snowed under with moderating people’s posts – both the spam, threats and the various posts violating Facebook’s Terms of Service.

If you want to view a larger version of the picture, you can view it here.

The shield emblazoned with ‘Europa’, the Aryan appearance of the maiden and the depiction of national borders are somewhat of a give away. But wait, there’s more!

Alongside the Jesus Christ t-shirts from where the picture was sourced, we have “Freedom of Speech – Geert Wilders” t-shirts. Wonderful Geert, with his human rights treaty violating, ethnicity based immigration policies, policy placing language restrictions on religious speech, and other authoritarian non-freedom of speech policies.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. It’s one thing to oppose the blasphemy laws that Wilders has been prosecuted under, but it’s another thing entirely to support the man himself. It’s another thing to treat him like a messiah for free speech (a stupid thing for free thinkers to do) and another again to treat him as a champion for anything other than the Christian nationalist that he is (a stupid thing for supposedly secular atheists to do).

And of course, the German Politically Incorrect News website is a Christian nationalist website, so this is all par for the course. As is homophobia.

Yes, what’s a good, Christian Europe without a bit of gay bashing. Not literally of course.

That old rhetorical chestnut of “why do Teh Gays protest against Christians instead of a real target like Teh Muslims?”, gets a go. Of course, there’s a reason why gays would want to protest against the “well-combed young people from good, civil households” of a Catholic Cathedral – which you’d know if you didn’t live under a rock. The Pope and his apologists have been blaming Teh Gays (and atheists, and secularism and blah, blah, blah) for all of the church’s (and society’s woes). The last time I checked, rocking up outside of a Mosque isn’t a good way to send a message to The Pope.

And what hypocrisy it is, to peddle obvious ethnic baiting (the map, people, the map) on one hand, or even just defend blasphemy, then on the other hand complain that Teh Gays are making an obvious attempt to provoke Catholics. What a mind bending double standard!

This kind of thing is common enough to criticise, and easily researched enough to be understood. (And if German’s not your thing, let me introduce you to BabelFish).

And don’t give me that “but there was no homophobia in the picture – just because they’re loons doesn’t mean they’re wrong” apologia. The nationalism of the picture was a dead give away, and the rest is at least implicit in the European values that the Aryan maiden is defending. The signs are easy to find in the artwork once you’ve raised your consciousness to detect lunacy, and the lunatic context is as easy to find as following the links.

(Did I mention that ‘Politically Incorrect News’ conflates Nazism with Socialism and Islam under the slogan “The Socialist No Chance!”? Glenn Beck wants his meme back.)

It’s not all as obvious as this. Sometimes the loons are a lot better at slithering in under the radar. Take Pat Condell.

It’s not always as easy as this. The sheer volume of contributions is making life hard for the moderators and things can and will get past them.

But for pity’s sake, if you’re just drifting through at a leisurely pace and you see one of the many obvious examples, such as the one above, for pity’s sake call it for what it is. Especially if it’s the kind of crap that you criticise religions for and especially when it’s religiously motivated.

Otherwise I’ll just have no choice but to conclude that you’re stupid or lazy – and that’s a Boolean or – you can be both!

~ Bruce

Last night I wrote a draft, to be published this morning, as to why I wasn’t going to participate in “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day”.

It’s not that it was an ill-informed post, nor that my concerns have just up and left – they haven’t – it’s that I’ve got new contextual details.

My objection to my participation – not an objection to the depiction of Muhammad – was that a number of loons had infested the event. Furthermore, someone who I had held in high regard had said something extremely stupid in the course of saying things somewhat less stupid, although still stupid.

The participation of the self-styled “Christian Infidels”, not a group I can say I respect (I’m not a lover of right-wing nationalistic jingoism) were publishing some pretty nasty stuff – it made a few of my more antagonistic atheist friends on Facebook a little queezy. Part of the original brief for “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day” was to not aim for disrespect for Muslims.

Well, the “Christian Infidels” didn’t seem to pay much attention to that. If I can get a hold of some examples – the Everybody Draw Muhammad Day group seems to be inaccessible at the moment – if I can access the “Christian Infidel” material, and find you an example that I don’t consider as something that would be vandalising my blog, I’ll see what I can do.

But a kind of Facebook association with the “Christian Infidels” wasn’t the thing that most caused me to worry. No.

For the past couple-of-weeks-to-a-month I’ve been following the fracas on YouTube between Coghlin666, ThunderF00t and Pat Condell. Suffice to say I leant toward Richard Coughlin’s position at the beginning when he was getting stuck into Pat Condell for his endorsement of the batshit crazy UKIP, but have since definitely decided for myself that there are clear-cut sides in the debate and am now well and truly on Coughlin’s side of this argument.

There is one thing however that seems to have got past people’s radar, or at least it manages to avoid specific mention. It’s that extremely stupid thing that ThunderF00t said, that I mentioned earlier.

“Although many Muslims struggle, I mean really struggle with this new-fangled technology of making fire.”

(ThunderF00t, 2010)

If you go and watch the video, you’ll see that even when not devoid of context (that of some Islamic extremists making a mess of trying to burn a flag) it doesn’t rescue this stupid, stupid comment. What’s next? “Us primitive Muslims, we no do technology good! Ungg!”

If ThunderF00t had said “some” instead of “many”, it would have been completely different – some Muslims really were struggling with making fire. But no, ThunderF00t had to go and extend the joke, smearing an thinly veiled accusation of inferiority out over a large number of people who frankly aren’t responsible for their circumstances.

And don’t give me the knee jerk “I’m offended” rebuttal (it’s already been tried by someone obviously too stupid to fully grasp the nature of the rebuttal – tried and deleted after it was smacked down). I’m not arguing against free speech. I’m not arguing from offence. So save it.

ThunderF00t’s smear was just that – directed at people, not a belief. It wasn’t even pertinent to the otherwise sensible argument he was making in the video. Nor was the comment particularly grounded in a sensible appreciation of reality. ThunderF00t’s rhetoric of the past few weeks – patting himself on the back for putting his life on the line while at the same time calling the threats impotent (think about that one) – has taken him to the heights of idiocy.

It’s new territory for him and I think he’s lost himself somewhat. As I said, I used to have a lot of respect for him.

But what’s more disturbing than mere disappointment at a stupid comment, is how people who pat themselves on the back for being critical thinkers have rushed to his defence.

Yes. Too often people criticising Islam are wrongly smeared as intolerant or bigoted based on distortions and fabrications. Yes. Too often blasphemy is treated like a hate crime – it’s a victimless crime (if you don’t include the person being charged with it).

But a knee-jerk defence reaction isn’t something that those who supposedly place a high currency on critical thought should be engaging in. The case of ThunderF00t demonstrates this – ThunderF00t screwed up for real. This isn’t a distortion. This isn’t a fabrication.

Engaging in denial about it is self-defeating for skeptics and critics because active denial about something the evidence supports isn’t supposed to be a part of the skeptical/critical repertoire.

This more than most things, informed my prior decision not to participate in “Everyone Draw Muhammad Day”. ThunderF00t is a popular skeptic. His take on “Draw Muhammad Day” is quite a prominent part of the proceedings. As is the response of his subscribers in YouTube threads.

I don’t want to enable this pseudo-skeptic, denialist, ThunderF00t apologetics. He screwed up. People need to grow up and get their heads around it.

***

So here’s the deal – my participation is in no way an act of solidarity with ThunderF00t or his apologists on this matter. Further, my participation isn’t an act of solidarity with the creators of South Park – I think PZ has their number on this one.

Further still, my participation isn’t in solidarity with the safe, sheltered, middle-class nerds who think that if we all do it together, we’ll be safe. I’d do it alone. I have done it alone.

It’s not that great a risk drawing Momo, especially when compared with commonplace domestic threats (e.g. spousal abuse, muggings, psychotic breaks by drug addicts). Yes, it’s not impossible that you could be gunned down and stabbed for it like Theo van Gogh – but it’s highly unlikely.

Frankly, encounters with knife wielding maniacs aren’t entirely uncommon in the lives of the working classes of developed nations  – i.e. repeatedly in my childhood, and that of many others. This protest seems all so very safe to me and you probably don’t want to know the full depths of how I perceive the self-back-slapping.

The threat only feels menacing to sheltered, middle-class nerds because sheltered, middle-class nerds are sheltered.

If people are going to give themselves a medal for being a brave campaigner, just for overcoming their inner-sissy, well I’m not going to enable that.

So, the fact that I’ve got some pictures of Mo on this post shouldn’t be interpreted as support for any of this kind of arsehattery – most of all by people engaging in said arsehattery.

But why have I participated?

Like I said, I wasn’t going into generalisms. I didn’t want to support arsehattery. But it doesn’t follow from that I smeared every participant as a bigot, or a cretin, or whatever.

The thing with this kind of thing being undertaken through social media, is that people will have very different experiences from each other. People choose their friends. People block interaction with certain users. People don’t use every particular medium that the debate is being facilitated by. People can be, and are often, selective in what media they expose themselves to.

For other participants without delusions of brave crusades, delusions of risk nor bigoted motivations, they very well may not interact with the arsehat end of the spectrum and hence participate in an entirely sane campaign. Or at least the sane part of it – presenting them with no good reason to withdraw.

There’s no objective indication that most, much less all of the people participating are participating out of animus or delusion.

Which is half of why I’ve participated.

The other half is that these innocents are being smeared by people as intolerant and hateful. Drawing Muhammad is not in and of itself hate speech, nor is it slanderous. Blasphemy is a victimless crime. It’s only when actual animus passes itself off as blasphemy that you have a problem – and that has a burden of proof associated with it that simply isn’t being met.

Yet some people with a high distinction in posturing but a fail in comprehension of civics, are smearing innocent people.

I criticised ThunderF00t for smearing innocent people, and I’m doing the same thing again with the censorious types. At least a number of the people involved in Everyone Draw Muhammad Day are not intolerant, hateful or slanderous – I know this much as a fact. But the Against “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day” group (falsely) alleges intolerance and slander across all participants.

This fabrication is itself intrinsically intolerant and slanderous, while potentially hateful as well. At least they got their self-description of zero-tolerance right!

People who really care about tolerance put an effort into actually understanding what it is, and they don’t cheapen the concept by crying wolf, pointing at innocent people just for expressing unwanted opinions, then parading themselves around as supposedly tolerant people. They, and their pathetic simulacrum of a humane, thought out civics, deserve to be criticised. It’s just self-aggrandising wank.

“Oh, we are so nice and tolerant! Not like those Others.” Familiar?

Ironically, if it weren’t for discovering this pretentious and disingenuous Facebook group by way of Molly Norris’ equally intellectually bankrupt website* this morning, I wouldn’t have participated today – ironic because of the complaints about people inciting Muslims.

I guess we can blame Molly Norris and friends for inciting people (i.e. Me) to draw stick figures then?

Probably not in my case. Because unlike for some people, there’s evidence I’ve actually thought out my actions in advance. I stand by them.

~ Bruce

* I love that she loves the YouTube video where the guy tells people to stand up for free speech while telling them not to draw Muhammad. I wonder how these people resolve their cognitive dissonance.

I can’t help but vacillate between apathy, joy and being slightly disturbed by the whole affair.

I’ll make the obligatory, entirely unoriginal confession: except for that which she may have written for TV that I’ve laughed at, I’ve never liked her stuff. Ever.

I’ve been at a loss as to why people like her, so I’ve read her material at The Age; the supposedly funny, informative, thought provoking stuff. I haven’t even snickered and I haven’t felt my consciousness raised.

People have retold her jokes to me via Twitter, live tweeting from the Global Atheist Convention from earlier this year. They didn’t make me laugh either.

So “pierced anal egg roll” is an anagram of Cardinal George Pell? If that’s supposed to be funny, I can’t see it.

While I concede that tweeting jokes written for a live performance is a good way of stripping them of tone and nuance, I can’t see how these kinds of jokes can be delivered with a laugh. Honestly.

Were people only able to laugh at her thanks to the crowd environment? Sort of like the contrast between Red Dwarf with and without canned laughter?

I’m not going to conclude from my own ignorance – I’ll wait until I have a copy of the Global Atheist Convention DVD and make my mind up about her live performances from that. Heck, she may be great to go and see live for all I know.

At any rate, this post isn’t about anything other than her writing for The Age. That I don’t find her funny, or whatever I may come to think about her live act, is beside the point.

Offence and edginess

My ignorance on other-matters-Deveny aside, her diatribes against the poor – and they aren’t gentle mocking – remind me of when I moved from a nasty block of flats in one of the nastiest suburbs in Adelaide, to a middle-class location with a middle-class friend.

Somewhat broken after being overworked (and poisoned and stressed the hell out) in a nasty factory job, my humour directed at my former-fellow-bogans was snide, capricious posturing. It wasn’t funny at all.

Indeed, I consider this stage in my life as rock bottom in as far as my comedic ability is concerned.

With the exception of my still recovering ability to make with the funnies, I’m well over that stage of my life, have learned not to be ashamed of or aggrieved by my working class roots and indeed have learned to embrace them. No more am I one of those people so at odds and insecure amongst the middle-to-upper class that they need to bag the old working-class crowd just to fit in. Apparently Deveny hasn’t managed this, which is a shame for her, if not her readers.

But about her no longer working for The Age…

Does she deserve it? I think so.

Yeah, yeah, comedians are supposed to push the envelope. But being offensive and pushing the envelope are two different things, the latter being the pay-off for the sometimes former – which is where Deveny comes undone. She wasn’t pushing the envelope. She was just pushing people’s buttons.

The comment about Bindi Irwin – I totally get where Deveny is coming from, and anyone not looking to be offended can see it as well – the sexual objectification of young girls. It’s easy to see because it’s neither contentious nor far outside the public consciousness. Yeah, Neil Mitchell totally botched it when he called this “picking on Bindi Irwin” – but Neil Mitchell isn’t someone I’d credit as being particularly with it.

Ask some biddy from an upper class suburb who’s most emancipated act is to give navigational advice to her husband from the passenger seat of their Volvo, “do you think young women are too sexually objectified by the media these days?”, and what do you think she’s going to say? You expect her to agree that young girls shouldn’t be sexed-up to sell stuff, wouldn’t you?

Sure, prudes may not be the best example of feminism in action, but conversely, if criticism of the sexualisation of young women is so on the nose, where is the mainstream voice yelling “young girls are still overdressed!” It’s not pushing the envelope at all to suggest that women are sexually objectified.

Deveny is on the right side of this issue, but she’s well inside the safe zone of the mainstream and she’s not being at all informative, nor challenging. Sure, it’s only a tweet, but the same is also true about what she writes in The Age about poor people.

Since when did repeating stereotypes about poor people that everybody already knows constitute as “edgy”? How does this constitute challenging the assumptions of “white honkies in suits”? There’s nothing challenging about it. It’s easy pickings.

Here’s “edgy” – a guy who got on a bus in Elizabeth in the 1990s in thongs, jeans and singlet, carrying a slab of VB, only to sit down before interjecting in a conversation to articulately criticise the divisive and misleading propaganda of Pauline Hanson and One-Nation. True story.

It doesn’t fit well with people’s assumptions of “bogans”, does it? Not offensive at all – but more edgy an observation than the unoriginal tripe Deveny writes about poor people, because it challenges commonly held beliefs.

I don’t have a problem with defending critique from the whining hordes of the offended. But I have a problem defending garbage.

How can you defend Deveny’s position of privilege if all she can provoke is a gag reflex, rather than touching on genuinely sore points? Her role as a columnist was justified and is defended on the grounds of being “edgy” social commentary, no? “Edgy” my arse – clichéd is what it is.

Tone

I’m willing to give, and do in fact give her the benefit of the doubt on the question of whether or not she’s really got a chip on her shoulder, or even on the question of whether she’s deliberately pot-stirring to generate controversy. There’s this other explanation that people seem to be ignoring – the possibility that she just doesn’t do tone very well in the relevant medium. Hanlon’s Razor people.

I know I have my problems writing hyperbole without it coming off the wrong way (even after allowing for a healthy range of ways in which the hyperbole may be received); maybe Deveny’s got the same problem. But then, I’m not trying to get my hyperbole published in The Age. It sits here, on this blog – a kind of a sandbox for practice, or a sin-bin until I can get it right.

Would I expect a job based on my unreliable control of tone at the hyperbolic end of the spectrum? Hell no! I’ve got to shape up.

But so does Deveny. I really don’t get why Marieke Hardy referred to Deveny as “a very, very fine writer” – focusing on her books to the exclusion of her writing in The Age? I’m focusing on her writing in The Age to the exclusion of her books and her live performances and her writing for shows like Full Frontal and BackBerner.

Maybe my thoughts on the matter would be different if I did take these outlets into account – Deveny’s use of tone perhaps not being as problematic therein – but what’s that got to do with her merit as a columnist for The Age?

Nil.

Potential straw-men and towing the line

It’s not like I’m ashamed of her being considered a progressive. It’s statistically inevitable that in any sizable political grouping, you’re going to have people who don’t meet expectations. Pointing out that any one of them just happens not to measure up in some respect is meaningless in as far as representation of the whole group is concerned.

I’m not ashamed of Catherine Deveny through her recent sea-change to atheism. She’s just another one in a crowd of people that I’m not responsible for.

The Age doesn’t appoint official progressives, nor does it appoint official atheists. Indeed, if job performance at a newspaper is scored by the ability to conform to political or official religious norms, then said newspaper is in trouble.

So she’s a convenient straw-man for conservatives and religious apologists to rail against? So what? Take her away and they’ll just find another.

It’s not the odd, supposedly progressive columnist acting up that’s the problem in as far as misrepresentation is concerned – it’s the use of straw-men itself. Will the amount of straw-men arguments used against progressives and atheists drop now that Deveny has been fired? I very much doubt it.

I don’t dislike Deveny’s writing for its non-conformity (such as it is) at all. She’s not obliged to tow some party line and it’d be wrong for Fairfax to expect it of her.

But expecting a writer to tow the line is one thing, expecting them not to produce hackneyed, predictable posturing dressed up as substance is another.

Hypocrisy and double standards

It’s not that I can’t see the cynicism in The Age milking the controversy of her tweets for as long as they did, before firing her. That was pretty hypocritical. But that doesn’t reflect upon the merit of Deveny’s privileged position one way or the other.

It’s not that I can’t see the double standards the media holds in relation to the behaviour of their columnists – there are other people in the who have done worse, who will be immune from sacking by virtue of their political persuasion, gender and/or religion.

I’d much prefer an even playing field, where writer’s wouldn’t have their group-membership see preferential treatment – but this is an ideal version of the media. If I’m going to hold to an ideal version of the media with an even playing field, I can also hold to an ideal media without the garbage commentary.

Special treatment of others worse than Deveny accounted for, I still can’t bring myself to see her position with Fairfax as having been justified.

You see I don’t weigh Deveny against the other, nastier columnists. No. I weigh her against the potential writers displaced by her employment that subsequently lack the voice that she has. The voice that she takes for granted each time she hyperventilates and exaggerates about what’s been done with her work when people have had enough. I could easily list at length a number of Australian bloggers I consider more deserving.

So all the same, hypocrisy not withstanding, I’m glad to see that Deveny’s writing is no longer wasting finite, premium space in the Australian media.

Fired! Fired! Fired! Fired!

But who else would I like to see fired?

I’ve got rather a longish list, actually. One that Catherine Deveny wasn’t even close to being at the top of.

This is the part where things start to disturb me.

There’s a whole bunch of people I’d like to see let go on the grounds that they never deserved their jobs – but unlike Deveny, in as far as I can tell they haven’t had sufficient warning from the boss.

What kind of precedent would be set by sacking these writers without sufficient warning?

Then there’s the whole matter of rewarding those making the calls for the sackings. What happens when people realise “hey, we can get writers fired for disagreeing with us! Get ‘em!”?

Ready the pitchforks! Light the torches! That kind of thing.

If the reader were effectively enabled to remove people from newspapers the way they out contestants on Big Brother, then we’ve got a problem.

Pretty soon anyone contentious would have an angry mob keeping editors busy considering confected outrage, when they’d be better off considering other matters pertaining to the quality of their publication. What a waste of time and energy!

And what about the loss of perspective as opinion writers from minority and dis-empowered groups get squeezed out by the mob?

While I have a number of people in the media in mind that I don’t think deserve their various jobs, I’m not exactly baying for blood. Hence why I’m not naming them. At least not until after they get the boot.

The other mob

Not nearly as scary as the “Fire! Fire! Fire! Fire!” mob, are the Deveny fans defending her position at The Age.

Look, if there’s some matter of Deveny losing her job through a diversion from due process, then I won’t weep if she gets her job back. At the very least it prevents a disturbing IR precedent in the press, which nobody with a brain in their head should want.

But really, why support her?

I’m yet to see anyone argue the merits of her writing in The Age beyond “I liked it”, and a host of the usual arguments of perspective; an atheist voice; a woman’s voice in a male dominated medium; yadda yadda.

I like plenty of things that don’t merit printing in The Age. I wouldn’t have grounds to complain if any of these things were removed from such a position of privilege. A news outlet isn’t a newsagent – just because you want a certain kind of content doesn’t mean they should get it in for you.

The question of perspective, particularly more marginalised perspectives, doesn’t serve to defend Deveny at all. Indeed, if one wants to argue from perspective, perhaps one would like to advance the idea that The Age print material from the perspective of those living well within the shopping centre culture Deveny compares to an archetypal hated uncle? I wonder what they’d have to say about Deveny? They aren’t all inarticulate, those be-mulletted folk.

Then there’s another implication. I said before that there are bloggers that I think deserve Deveny’s job more than Deveny. Some of these just happen to be witty, educated, atheist women.

There are only so many columnist positions available. Claiming that Deveny deserves the position, is to say that a whole lot of other atheist, feminist, skeptic women without one don’t – they can’t all have the one job.

Confusingly (to me), I’ve noticed some of these deserving women actually seem to be getting behind Deveny.

You know what Facebook group I’d like to see them join instead of “Get Deveny back into The Age” (I paraphrase)? “I’d step over the corpse of Deveny’s career as a columnist because I deserved it more than her from the get-go”, that’s what – even if it is a little pitch-forky.

You aren’t going to tell me this kind of competitiveness isn’t feminine, are you?

Again, there are a lot of people in the press that I think are less deserving than Deveny (most of them men), and I’d be happy to see them give way to the talented women I talk of. But seeing deserving people downplay their own merits by implication in order to support someone who in my opinion isn’t nearly as deserving, to my mind isn’t helping advance neglected perspectives. It’s having those of the neglected perspective place an impediment to their own cause, in the name of their own cause.

And if you’re one of those bloggers that thinks Deveny is good, then before you tell me off please consider that I may just think that you’re better, alright?

There’s one other thing… Even if a bad thing, Deveny’s sacking is hardly the worst that The Age has to worry about in as far as the integrity of the publication is concerned.

The descent in recent years into banal, inner-city-themed puff-pieces is an erosion of content anyone worried about The Age‘s output should have at the top end of their priorities concerning the newspaper. For those claiming that the loss of Deveny is a big loss for The Age, enough to join a Facebook group angling to get her back in, where’s your membership in Facebook groups trying to get frivolous crap ejected from The Age?

If you don’t take these other threats to the integrity of The Age at least as seriously, then you can’t expect people to take your little campaign seriously, can you? If it’s not about the integrity of The Age, it’s not pertinent to Deveny’s role as a columnist for the paper.

Last words

I may not mourn the loss of Catherine Deveny’s writing from The Age, but I’m hardly jumping up and down with glee either. The woman does have a family to look after. I don’t hate the lady.

I wish her all the best in her other endeavours. Even if I don’t come to like her stand-up or books, I don’t wish to stop other people from enjoying them, nor Deveny making money from them.

What I’ve heard about her support for women behind the scenes at the Global Atheist Conference this year has convinced me that she has a role to play in these things in future. I used to have questions about what her use to the convention may be – I don’t any more. I don’t want to see that lost.

But when it comes to The Age, I put the integrity of the paper before the interests of some people’s favourite comedian. I think these interests conflict and nothing I’ve heard or seen about Deveny’s other merits, in my mind mitigate against this conflict.

~ Bruce

(Picture Source: Public domain.)

Let’s not deceive anyone. Draw Muhammad Day is a stunt protest.

It pales in comparison to meaningful critiques of Islam, and otherwise thoughtful acts that have been forbidden by religious fervour.

Does drawing Muhammad stack up to the publication of The Satanic Versus in terms of reason in the face of fundamentalism? Surely not.

Does drawing Muhammad compare in terms of championing human rights to many a thoughtful tract written against slavery, or racial equality? You’d have to be kidding me.

That being said, I don’t think that stunt protests are automatically wrong and/or ineffectual, just by virtue of being stunts. There are however, wrong ways of going about it.

Drawing Muhammad isn’t that big a risk for most of “us”…

Recently I observed a semi-high profile member of the atheists community state, talking the significance of what he’d done up a bit, described his actions as “putting my life on the line.”

This is exaggeration.

Yes, there have been death threats made. Yes there have been violent riots. Yes, a Danish cartoonist had a psycho-religious-loon enter his home to kill him.

First and foremost, all the really bad stuff has happened in locations more exposed to risk and secondary to this they’ve been directed against high-profile instances of the depiction of Muhammad.

In case you didn’t realise, the depiction of Muhammad isn’t some new phenomena. Godless infidels have been doing that on the Internet for ages now. And how many of them have been killed for it? Yeah. Not that many.

Sure it can happen. And the death threats that have occurred are to be criticised both for their offence against civil liberty and on the grounds of their sheer absurdity.

But the Internet Tough Guy routine acted out by the safe and secure is bound to alienate anyone with a bit of perspective, when what you want to do with any protest, stunt or not, is raise consciousness.

And let’s be frank. If you live in an area relatively safe from this kind of threat and you aren’t a high-profile figure, yet you prattle on with rhetoric that would be better placed in the lyrics of a 1980s b-grade action movie montage, then you’re a blow-hard. You aren’t taking it to the limits. You aren’t putting it on the line. You’re doing nothing of the sort.

It only seems like you’re doing something ultra-risky because you’re the type of person who wouldn’t bake cupcakes in a Suzie Homemaker oven for fear of burning your pinky on the light globe. People from low socio-economic backgrounds deal with more threats to their life and liberty than you’re likely to come across in your life just by drawing a picture of Momo.

I say this both as someone from a low socio-economic background who amongst other nasties has had a knife drawn across his throat and gun stuck in his face, and as someone who has already drawn and published a likeness of Muhammad. And I say this as someone who still considers himself privileged – I could have it much, much worse, because so many people really do have it much, much worse. There’s no need to exaggerate the risks involved.

By dubbing yourself a brave defender of “The West” from the safety of your middle class suburban home, you really label yourself as a flaming great sissy.

Consider blow-hardery one of the ways you can stuff up your protest depiction of Muhammad.

Who’s your audience?

This blog post isn’t intended for people who are just in it as one great circle-jerk. I would have mentioned this at the start of the post except that I’d potentially lose the chance of calling the odd flaming great sissy, a “flaming great sissy”. Now that that’s done, I can gladly recommend that the circle-jerkers amongst you sod off and practice your sublimated masturbatory fantasy somewhere else – you aren’t interested in what I’ve got to say, trust me.

Now, those of your who are left.

Who is your audience?

Is it the person in a Middle Eastern Country who isn’t safe to draw and publish Muhammad, but can occasionally sneak a look past a possibly censored Internet to catch a glimpse of your protest? What would they get out of your stunt? Affirmation of the absurdity of the pressures they live under – an affirmation that they are right of mind – or a slap across the face from the haves on the grounds of their have not? Are you out to rub your freedoms in these people’s faces?

Just because I called this a stunt protest doesn’t mean I don’t think it should be well thought out. The best stunts usually are, hence I suggest people think this out properly.

I honestly had it put to me recently that “they” in the Middle East, can’t complain about having “our” freedoms rubbed in their faces because “they” didn’t fight for them like “we” did. This has to be one of the stupidest ad-hoc reasons for a protest that’s ever passed by my eyes.

“Yes! They didn’t fight for their freedoms the way we did because they didn’t have time machines to go back and help found the Magna Carta or fight in the American War of Independence like we did!”

What self-aggrandizing wank! Most of us in the “free world” didn’t fight for our freedoms – we were lucky enough to be born into a country where we could inherit them!

If you include in your audience, those living under oppression, should you be blaming them for their situation? Moreover, how do you think you convey your message if it comes with the understanding that you take your freedoms for granted as a part of some spurious, self-centred narrative?

Is your audience those people in “The West” that treat the depiction of Muhammad as a greater offence than the censorship of the depiction of Muhammad? Are you clear on what it is you are saying, even if they are not? Are you clear that in as far as these people are your target, it’s the depiction versus censorship in your own part of the world, rather than the depiction versus the religious crazies half a world away?

Is your audience the moderates who exaggerate offense? What’s the best way (if any) to reach past such hollow posturing? Meek, minimalist stick figure Momo or ultra-offensive Momo sitting on the toilet having a wank? Are these people going to get that you aren’t insensitive to the offence you are causing, that indeed being sensitive to the offence taken by others is precisely why you are doing it – to desensitize them – to normalise what should ultimately in a secular democracy, be a trivial thing.

Depending on who your audience is, the way you participate in something like Draw Muhammad Day matters – what tact and what point do you want to get across?

There’s no point in minimising your chances of consciousness raising and there’s no point in championing a particular point that’s not in doubt with the people you are trying to reach.

How are you going to follow through?

Not that I’m suggesting that you have to commit yourself to some kind of a timetable, but you have to admit that any stunt protest – even the really good ones – have to be a part of a larger whole. There’s no point doing your thing, then packing up and going home and expecting…

A) Your point to be made definitively and for all time.

…and…

B) Gratitude for your flag-waving.

Perhaps you could commit yourself to further discussion on the matter on a casual basis. Casual? Yes. But that doesn’t mean uncommitted.

At the very least you could hang around for the rebuttals, even if you’re expecting a deluge of rubbish arguments. Rubbish arguments when popular, need debunking the most and if you’re going to be the stimulus for an outpouring of bad ideas, shouldn’t you stick around for the clean-up?

And what about the questions? What about people who want to inquire into your deepest motives?

Are you going to stick around and explain, or are you going to leave that up to the redneck with the Momo portrait that just happens to want to burn the Middle East into one giant glass crater? You’d defer to him to tell it like it is?

What are your motives? Do they line up?

Do you really take issue with anti-blasphemy laws? Do you really take idea with the pretence that drawing Muhammad is intolerant, while banning the drawing of Muhammad is tolerant?

Perhaps you don’t like tolerance. Perhaps you consider drawing Muhammad to be intolerant and that’s precisely why you want to draw him. Perhaps you find the depiction of Muhammad just lemon-peachy, but if someone mentions Pisschrist! Oh, that’s not okay! Yet you’ll draw your drawing under the banner of free-speech so as to look as if you’re respectable.

Does taking sides in a sectarian manner really line up with what Draw Muhammad day is actually about?

Perhaps you’d like to stop Middle Easterners from entering your country. Even if they are atheists. Even if they are Christians. Even if they’re something else with nothing to do with Muhammad. Perhaps you just don’t like Middle Easterners.

Does this line up with what Draw Muhammad day is about? Or could you get your own parade? Are the goals of the likes of the British National Party more in line with your thoughts?

Perhaps you just don’t like the UN or the EU. Screw defending the UN or the EU against their policies on human rights being hijacked by human rights abusers and their apologists – you never liked the UN or the EU in the first place. Drawing Muhammad is just a convenient way to get at them.

But do attacks on the mere existence of UN or the EU actually line up with the goals of Draw Muhammad day?

Sure, you may very well incorporate a genuine defence of freedom of expression into your loathing of the UN or the EU, but that doesn’t mean that Draw Muhammad day is about the UN or the EU. These are related, but not necessarily dependent matters – the existence of the UN and the EU does not necessarily depend on the freedom to blaspheme. The UN and the EU can conceivably recover from the sess-pit of Durban II and related human rights failures, while other regimes – individual nations – can break with treaties and impose their own anti-blasphemy laws.

And what about your other grievances with the UN and EU? What does that have to do with drawing Muhammad? The unified EU currency and all the associated fiscal and trade woes. The relative lack of direct representation for the population in both organisations.

Why should the other participants in Draw Muhammad Day have to carry political baggage not associated with drawing Muhammad? Your political baggage?

Sure, I can’t compel you one way or another. Just as you can’t compel me or anyone else to take you seriously.

What’s your style?

Are you an absurdist?

Absurdism would seem the appropriate response to the absurd situation that is being protested. But it’s not the only tact one could take.

I’m an absurdist. If I join in, I’ll draw something absurd. Pointedly absurd. That’s my strength.

Doesn’t it also make sense, that if one can’t parse absurdism because they aren’t wired for it, take this into consideration when commenting on absurdist participation? It does get so tiresome when the stick-in-the-mud non-absurdist tries to tell you that it’s all childish and non-funny just because they can’t get the point of the deliberate incongruity.

It’s like saying “no, there aren’t any colours there and nobody else can see them – they’re lying – I should know, I’m colour blind!”

Know your limitations, act accordingly and realise that other participants may have different strengths to you that you may not be able to appreciate. Someone else may. Someone else that you would have got to if only you’d been able to master a certain style. This makes a manifold of styles important.

What to expect…

I may sound like a bit of an old fuss pot (and maybe I’m aging into one) on all of this, but I don’t hold the highest expectations for each and every participant. I won’t begrudge someone’s participation just because they may not be the funniest, nor have any campaigning experience, nor the most talent in the world. It’s bad enough that not everyone has the opportunity to freely express themselves so I’m hardly going to stifle it when the change does arise.

That being said, I’d still hope for most people to do their best in good faith.

And then there’s those others. Those in the art of self-promotion for one reason or another – political expediency or just plain attention seeking.

Often it’s political expediency and I’m fine with that. An effective voice needs a profile, that’s just reality.

But it’s an a priori truth that for everyone with a louder voice than most, there are many more without as much of a say in things. Hence, it’s not exactly unreasonable for those many others without much of a say to expect those with the privilege of a louder voice to use it in a manner at least as effective as they could.

This is where the attentions whores with a power base become a problem – they suck up oxygen that would be better spent on someone else. They have a net negative effect on the campaign.

Sure, they can’t be forced to stop – free expression and all that – but they can’t expect people to respect the way they squander their privilege.

Worse still is when they’re spokespersons for organisations. That’s a really privileged role, even if it’s a small one like an executive member of a university secular society, and especially when it’s an elected position within national secular organisations.

One can expect people in these positions to get it right just on the basis of the sheer privilege of the role. Further people can expect even more from the spokespersons if they’re paid-up members of these organisations – it’s called accountability.

I’ve already had one person in a nice middle class position in a university secular society call my criticism “sad”, when I criticised the use of the term “white guilt” (a term with specific connotations) in defence of their depiction of Muhammad. Notably, they didn’t actually address my criticism. I was hoping for a round two where I could feign being too busy to answer – what with trying to get some flowers and a card signed to congratulate Ayaan Hirsi Ali for finally overcoming her “white guilt” and thus at last being able to criticise Islam.

For those who don’t know, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is black and she’s been criticising Islam for longer than most of the members of these university secular organisations – thus illustrating the silliness of calling the taboo surrounding the criticism of Islam an iteration of “white guilt”. “White guilt” being (according to common use) the motivation behind sympathy from whites, such as the defence of African-Americans on welfare payments, or those who don’t blame African-Americans from New Orleans for the destruction of their homes. That’s “white guilt” folks – a racial fixation of the American right – not something that needs to be overcome in order to criticise Islam.

It takes a lot of taking your privilege for granted to enact political ineptitude of that scale and get precious about criticism, more to offload it onto your fellow members via your organisations communications organ, and more still to expect the campaign to carry your unrelated political baggage for you.

There’s a reason why there is criticism from some quarters that this is just a prank by some spoiled, middle class white boys beating their chests like they think they’re tough guys – because there are spoiled middle class white boys beating their chests like they think they’re tough guys. Too much World of Warcraft perhaps.

It’s not the dominant culture in this campaign but let’s not pretend that it’s not there (along with the other forms of political parasitism hanging on to the topic) and let’s expect better of people with a voice in the various secular organisations out there, shall we?

~ Bruce

Note: Everybody Draw Muhammad Day is to be held on the 20th of May.

“That’s politically naive. We won’t win hearts like that!”

“Don’t criticise religion! We may want some religious people to join our cause!”

“Whaa! Whaa! Whaa!”

Who the hell put these people in charge? How can these people be put in charge?

Answer me this – what is the skeptic equivalent of Pope?

So your skeptical organisation may have an appointed leader. So what? What makes any given skeptical organisation the authority on skepticism? What makes a skeptical organisation the equivalent of The Vatican?

Excommunicate a skeptic from your ranks and they’re still a skeptic.

There is no grand Poo-Bah of skepticism because there can’t be one.

Now don’t get me wrong. I have no problem with disagreement in good faith about tactics – it’s healthy and rather obviously necessary.

But… There’s a difference between simple disagreement and authoritarian finger waving.

Ultimately, no skeptic is the boss of another’s skepticism. Sure, you may have a temporary agreement with them, such as an employment contract. But even this can be nullified and at the end of the day, it still won’t disqualify someone as a skeptic.

Which makes all the talking down-to more obscenely presumptuous.

And oh, the barracking! Yeah, there’s nothing more that I like to watch than some non-scientist, non-philosopher, insufficiently familiar with the views of say PZ Myers and Massimo Pigliucci to be able to critique them, picking a side.

Why do they pick a side? Group mentality. PZ’ pwning power or Massimo’s nicety, being the deciding factor.

I can think of an analogy – alternative medicine products. Would you buy a bottle of MAN FUEL!!!1! or Shaman-La-La-Twee pills if you were incapable of skepticism about the content?

There are occasional inconsistencies in PZ Myer’s rhetoric at time (sometimes I think by design for entertainment’s sake),  and there are a couple of philosophical points I have disagreements about (particularly ethics and knowledge pertaining to prescriptive statements) – and I take issue with Pigliucci for suspecting that Myers doesn’t make a distinction between methodological naturalism and philosophical/metaphysical naturalism – which Myers was wrongly accused of in Unscientific America, and which he roundly panned for it.

These are the kinds of important details so many of the cheerleaders miss, most likely because they don’t even comprehend them.

And this is why I like PZ’s fans more than the ‘accommodationist’ cheer squad. Sure, they may not always be polite. They may not take you seriously when they should. But they don’t tell you what to do under the pretence of knowing shit.

If they don’t know shit, and they like PZ’s rhetoric, they’ll just dribble shit. Standard Internet pwning shit.

But that’s no where near as arrogant as lecturing people about something that you clearly don’t understand, pretending to have the moral high-ground as well as the impossible authority of an impossible High Priest of Skepticism.

PZ hasn’t been as out with his epistemological leanings as he could be or as I’d like (it’s not my place to tell him to do otherwise). Into this relative information vacuum people have made up his opinions for him (particularly Chris Mooney). And people have sucked it up uncritically because it appeals to their sensibilities. Hardly skepticism par excellence.

But this team-oriented, sub-standard skepticism doesn’t seem to stop some people from telling skeptics how to undertake our skepticism.

“Haven’t you heard of NOMA?”

Yeah I have thankyou. Dimwit.

Non-overlapping?

Religious statement: The Earth is 6,000 years old.

Scientific statement: It is not.

Science can’t test every religious claim, but that’s not because they’re religious. Some religious claims can be tested empirically. There is overlap.

And as science moves into other areas traditionally occupied by religion (especially involving human nature), this overlap is going to increase. As will conflict.

Pretending there is no conflict is not only dishonest to begin with, but perilous as well.

Consider religious claims about human sexuality and associated behaviours. NOMA that for me will you thanks. Science has nothing to say? What’s that? Excuse me? You’re not what? What? A… Not a homophobe?

No you’re not a homophobe. You’re a homophobe enabler and further to that and more relevant to skepticism – you’re an enabler of quacks.

QUACK! QUACK!

No, not you, YOU! The one with the Colgate Twins t-shirt.

And don’t get me stated on the Francis “Science Has Nothing To Say About Human Nature” Collins’ appointment to the NIH. Key words – psychopathy, criminology, evolutionary psychology, mental health.

Good grief.

NOMA is not an authoritative statement. NOMA is an unsigned, unbinding treaty based on a false demarcation and cited by mountebanks.

If there were authority in skepticism, it should consider NOMA dye-bombed currency and treat the crooks using it accordingly.

And about those happy feelings…

“Arrest the Pope” was a stunt. Which “Arrest the Pope”? The considered legal proposition or the Facebook group? You mean Dawkins’ arresting the Pope and how it will offend Catholics and make them not take us seriously? Duh!

Boobquake? Women flashing their boobs? Well, if you think Boobquake is about women flashing their boobs, you need to do a bit more reading. And as for offending Muslim women subjugated by Islam – are women under Islam the point?

The Mullahs in question – source of oppression against women under Islam, sure. Husbands, the same. Okay, let’s assume that.

But what if your aim is simply to retaliate on behalf of non-Muslim women against Muslim men acting politically on a global scale? It’s not an irrelevant question.

The Mullahs (and other religious types sent into a tailspin by the sight of female skin) being offended by boobquake – not a problem. I’m not insensitive to the offence of these Mullahs – I’m quite aware of their fits – they don’t make themselves inconspicuous. It’s just that this particular suffering isn’t nearly enough, nor sufficiently antithetical to the aims of boobquake.

They can suffer in their jocks.

Muslim husbands being offended? In as far as this is true (and let’s not fall prey to stereotypes*) – I’m not insensitive – I’m aware but I just don’t care.

And the oppressed Muslim wives living in Iran where they would be victimized for participating in boobquake – where they couldn’t show a bit of leg, even on a hot day – I’m not insensitive to their potential offence via non-participation, in as far as it’s actually the case. But it’s not self-evident that this ressentiment (in as far as it actually exists*) in relation to women of the west baring flesh is antithetical to the cause of boobquake.

And frankly, I don’t think you could argue that boobquake contributes by accumulation to the Iranian populace’s grievance with the West. They’ve got a lot more than boobquake to be pissed off with the West about.

It’s not culturally insensitive to be aware, but just not care. Why should the boobquake crowd care?

If the aim is to draw Western attention to the silliness of certain Mullahs, and by extension some of their Western counterparts making similar claims linking sexual liberty to environmental disaster (Pat Robertson et al), what’s a few offended Iranian Muslim women? Indeed, why wouldn’t we want to offend them if they take offence at such a thing?

If you ask me, the West worries far too much about ‘liberating’ poor Middle Easterners, and too little about keeping ourselves free.

And since when did being ‘culturally sensitive’ in such a self-denying fashion equate to being effective? The Christian Right in the US has had three decades of highly successful campaigning riding on the back of an elephant with very, very thick skin.

It’s simply not a good idea to tell the boobquake crowd to pipe down. Nobody’s the boss of them. Even if for reasons other than those above, it’s not a good idea.

Then there’s the politics and the arseholes…

I just love when someone pulls the ‘politically naive’ card.

“Yes, what you’re saying is true, but you won’t get through to them if you let them in on it all in one hit. That’s politically naive.”

I’ve been in the Labor Party. I’ve done my union internship. That kind of stuff.

Not that I’m the greatest political operator by any stroke of the imagination – I have these things called principles that tend to get in the way – but what I can do is spot political ineptitude from a mile away. I may not always be able to articulate why, but I can usually tell who knows how to operate effectively.

Take Malcolm Turnbull – former leader in opposition and now retiring member of Australia’s predominant conservative party. (Update 5/05/2010: Turnbull has pulled a Ross Perot and has decided not to quit politics).

He has an overarching political philosophy that would have done his party a world of good, but he caved in to what the party wanted on a short-term basis – cheap points.  Malcolm Turnbull wasn’t the greatest political operator and whatever his other merits were (and they were many) it was pretty obvious from the start that he wasn’t going to cut it.

It was all too obvious when Turnbull was bullshitting people, if only because it was all so obvious when he wasn’t. The contrast was huge.

Compare straight-talking ex ALP leader Mark Latham – popular Mark Latham – with ‘reformed’ Mark Latham. The perceived need for him to clean up his image is what undid him.

He pretended he was what he wasn’t. He curbed some of his supposedly more extreme political views. Then he tanked. People couldn’t buy his story or his book – tainted as it was with the same neurotic need for self-revision.

This kind of self-denial was at the heart of the ALP’s electoral woes ever since losing the 1998 Federal election – only being broken by the electorate’s increasing dislike of the Howard Government – not some great sea change in the ALP’s position.

And the electorate hasn’t got a great love for the current ALP Prime Minister, Kevin ‘Safe Choice’ Rudd, either.

What about Health Care Reform in the US? Where did softly-softly get Obama?

I’m not talking about disenfranchising the base – I’m talking about negotiations with a party (the GOP) that won’t operate in good faith. It was only when Obama stopped playing the good host at the GOP’s tea party that he started making progress, but sadly only after giving away much too much.

The ‘hush-hush’ skeptics so often demonstrate the very same political impotence, which makes their sometimes accusations of ‘political ineptitude’ laughable.

Aside from not being able to deal effectively this way with interlocutors who don’t want to play ball, there’s the other problem…

The arsehole has tightly bundled nerve endings – hence people tend to notice when you try to crawl up it.

And the softly-softly people call PZ Myers insensitive. At least learn to use some lube people!

When you pretend to be who you aren’t, when you tell people things that you don’t believe, you give off tell-tale signs. People don’t even need to know the ins and outs of the topic at hand to pick up on these signs.

The only exception to this is in the case of particularly effective salespersons of snake oil, used cars and overpriced real estate. But as a skeptic, do you really want to engage people like this?

My objective is not to make creationists like me. Or indeed, religious people in general like me.

I don’t care if creationists get angry over court cases kicking creationism out of public school classes as long as court cases kick creationism out of classes. I don’t care so much if religious people don’t like me for not liking Francis Collins’ appointment to the NIH.

What I want is for them to know my view in as far as my view is worthy of being known, and that I’m not trying to bullshit them when putting my point across.

I can’t do this by peddling NOMA, or the idea that science has nothing to say about religious claims or even religion as a natural phenomena.

I’d rather be disliked but respected as an honest guy, than liked and seen as a convenient, dishonest wanker.

Conclusion

It’s really bad form for the (usually qualifications-impaired) cheerleaders in the skeptic movement to pretend to know shit, engage in partisanship on the basis of shit they don’t clearly understand, to talk shit to people who know their shit, and moreover to tell other skeptics in an inappropriately authoritarian, patronising, even puritan tone, just how to convey said shit in the shittiest, most dishonest way possible.

You’re a slacktivist, not a professional lobbyist. Your demands for decorum aren’t needed.

I’d suggest bossy skeptics not to expect their advice to be taken on board by other skeptics, and to just let people do things their own way.

~ Bruce

* I find the notion that Iranian Muslim women being universally offended through the supposed cultural insensitivity of boobquake, aside from being an example of out-group homogeneity bias, as about as silly as George Lucas’ insistence on having entire planets and moons dominated by singular geographical features (ice-planet, forest-moon etc).

Some Iranian Muslim women just won’t care, most probably won’t even hear about it, some may be jealous and others may be happy to see at least some women able to live such a lifestyle. Iranian Muslim women aren’t some unanimous voting bloc. It’s utterly provincial and naive to think otherwise. How about asking Iranian women what they think instead of just assuming they all think the same thing?

(Photo Source: Jeremy Kemp)

A part of this book I’m writing about the misrepresentation of atheists is to be dedicated to the mythologies surrounding prominent (so-called) ‘New Atheists’, with a chapter each dedicated to myth surrounding Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, as well as brief commentary on other less prominent mythologies (such as Daniel Dennett). The ‘Pope Nazi’ and the ‘Dawkins will arrest Pope’ memes will naturally have to be covered – both being typical examples and so very recent.

You can imagine a kind of Dawkins fatigue setting in at my end – he seems to have been in the news so much lately and so much of that news has been garbage. (Imagine how Dawkins must feel after decades of this kind of thing).

There are other parts of the book I’d prefer to focus on at the moment – I’ve had enough for now!

It doesn’t stop!

It’s almost like the critics have an unrequited, love-hate fixation on Dawkins, more so than the fans. And while this may only be true of a few of them, the effect is heightened by the fact that there are so many of them repeating the same misinformation. It may not be the case that any given critic publishes series after series of misleading screeds about Dawkins, but collectively they can be tiresome.

No longer is it the glaring dishonesty, nor the uncritical parsing of falsehoods that bothers me the most, but rather the unnecessary work it’s presenting me with! At least that’s the way I feel at the moment. I know I’m being selfish. I’m just venting.

Could everyone please fact check their stuff thanks? Is it that hard?

Apparently so…

Dawkins did not say that he was going to arrest the Pope. (HT: @pzmyers).

Dawkins did not call the current Pope a Nazi.

The former is relatively new news and the latter has been known for weeks. Yet…

Just last week (9th April, 2010), Gerard Henderson was digging in, insisting that Dawkins really did call Pope Benedict XVI a Nazi, citing Barney Zwartz’s piece in The Age from the 15th of March. The problem with this is that Barney retracted this claim in the comments of the post, and The Age ran a retraction on the 19th of March. (HT: @thewetmale and Fake Gary Ablett).

And even without these retractions, the falsity of the claim was known well before the 9th of April when Henderson published his defence. Nothing a bit of fact checking couldn’t have prevented, which makes Henderson’s “Media Watchdog” a rather ironic exercise.

But Hendo isn’t alone.

Ken Parish of Club Troppo, well after Dawkins had responded to the ‘Pope arrest’ meme, decided a few days ago to take a swipe at Dawkins for claiming he was going to arrest Ratzinger and for calling him a Nazi. Which as  previously established, Dawkins didn’t do.

“…the idiotic assertions of Dawkins and Hitchens simply discredit them as credible voices in any serious debate. Sadly, it seems that my rationalist hero Dawkins is just a self-promoting, publicity-seeking wanker, a pathetic male version of faded feminist guru Germaine Greer…”

(Ken Parish, 2010)

If Parish has retracted the two falsehoods he predicated this conclusion upon, it’s not to be found as an addition to the post, nor in the comments. Maybe Ken’s gone on holidays or fell under a bus. Or maybe he’s gone to ground out of shame.

And to think that Parish, a man who calls himself a skeptic, is parroting a fabrication that started out in the Murdoch press – in The Times, no less – well, it’s laughable. Some basic fact checking could have prevented this blunder as well.

But the cause for Club Troppo to be embarrassed doesn’t stop there. In comments under the post, Nicholas Gruen gives us this little gem…

“I’ve always found Dawkins’s manner that of an unctuous schoolboy, though when he talks about biology he can of course be fascinating.”

(Nicholas Gruen, 2010)

Oh dear. Look, I don’t know if I’d go as far as “unctuous”, but yeah, Dawkins’ tone can at times be a little too grammar school boy for my tastes. That’s understandable. I’m working class after all, but it’s not as if I’m going to write off someone’s ideas just because their prose doesn’t always align with my personal tastes.

It seems to me as if Gruen and Parish are out to prove the old adage “it takes one to know one”. Unctuous indeed!

(Is there a club for this pretentiousness? Run by Larvatus Prodeo perhaps?)

Gruen goes on to complain that all Dawkins does is pit science and evolution against creationism as a critique of religion (which is yet another strawman), and that he’s had his say.

To which I reply that not everyone’s read The Selfish Gene, or The Blind Watchmaker; science literacy in relation to Darwinian evolution is exceptionally poor. If in this climate, people want to read his stuff on the matter, and learn from it, then clearly the point isn’t being laboured. Subsequently Dawkins still earns a place in the spotlight even if he hasn’t changed his argument.

At any rate, Dawkins’ recent visit to Australia was to promote The Greatest Show on Earth, which isn’t a critique of religion. Again, some basic fact checking would be nice.

Gruen complains that Dawkins doesn’t add to, or modify his arguments. But on the topic of religion, specifically on the topic of the Vatican child abuse scandal, Richard Dawkins has changed his opinion since The God Delusion, and quite considerably.

On page 316 of my trusty copy of The God Delusion, in relation to the issue of the sexual molestation of children by the Church, Dawkins writes…

“The Roman Catholic Church has borne a heavy share of such retrospective opprobrium. For all sorts of reasons I dislike the Roman Catholic Church. But I dislike unfairness even more, and I can’t help wondering whether this one institution has been unfairly demonized over the issue, especially in Ireland and America.”

(Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, 2006)

I’ve been waiting for this phrase to come back and haunt Dawkins ever since 2006 (and it has – albeit in an exceptionally silly post – HT: @rod3000), but apparently a lot of people have forgotten. A convenient thing to forget when accusing Dawkins of not changing his argument, especially given the topic of discussion.

I’ve recently been told by a couple of people, that The Selfish Gene was a book that to paraphrase “deeply influenced their life” (an odd phenomena I’ve run into before). In various ways to ease communication, I’ve asked these people to give an ethological definition of “altruism” – a piece of terminology central to much of The Selfish Gene – and they couldn’t. How deeply could the book have influenced them if they don’t even understand one of the core concepts of the book?

When Gruen calls Dawkins “fascinating”, he reminds me of these people.

I’ll leave Club Troppo alone now. (And it has to be said that I’m considering ending my lurking thereabouts as well).

But still, this isn’t where the silliness ends. It still gets worse and I think for those of you not familiar with the lowest ebbs of HuffPo, you really should pay attention.

Check out Jerry Coyne’s take on Rory Fitzgerald’s original attack on Dawkins, and the now heavily edited (without acknowledgement), but still heavily error ridden piece, where Fitzgerald trivialises the Vatican child molestation scandal by arguing that if Ratzinger is responsible for the crimes of priests (under his authority), then Dawkins is responsible for crimes committed by (and supposedly committed by) atheists – the worst of which occurred before and while Dawkins was an infant and which Dawkins obviously had nothing to do with at all.

Hint Rory – Nazi Germany was not an atheistic regime; Hitler wasn’t an atheist, nor were most (if not all) his henchmen. It’s not good form to trivialise the suffering of victims of child abuse, the victims of the holocaust, just to prosecute a political grudge.

Infantile, poisonous drivel.

Some people just have too much of a fixation on Dawkins to properly discuss what he argues (that goes for some of the fans as well).

This is the stuff I find hardest in researching for the book – not so much intellectually, but psychologically.

I’ll be distilling this kind of thing down in the book, trying to make it more endurable, perhaps even entertaining. Of course, I’ll have to write about it when I’m not in a state of Dawkins-media-fatigue. I don’t want to spread ennui!

I think this chapter of the ongoing saga could do with a touch of levity. So I’ll segue out with a light hearted piece of satire by way of YouTube. My question is, is this a Dawkins fan, or a Dawkins critic*?

(You’ll Love Me, Richard Dawkins – 3:35 – HT: Kylie Sturgess)

Sometimes I think the Dawkins critics are projecting when they label as fanatic, those who turn up to Dawkins’ talks and read his books, just for turning up to talks and reading books. “Love me Richard. Affirm me!“

~ Bruce

* A rhetorical question.

It seems that’s already been done. Go check out Rebecca Watson’s take on things. Almost identical to mine, so defer to her description of how things unfolded.

And as for how this stunt is going to hurt organised skepticism (not Rebecca’s take on things) – well.

To ‘skeptics’ fond of making these kinds of silly assertions about how Dawkins is making it all so much worse for us, you weren’t skeptical. You fell for a dodgy bit of journalism in The Times*. Rather than double-check, like a good skeptic should, you just accepted it on face value and used it to prosecute this ongoing, faux-skeptic concern trolling you’ve got going. It’s tiresome.

To ‘skeptics’ who thought this was all a good thing – you should be embarrassed by your credulity. And whoever it was that made that photoshopped Dawkins-mullet picture, I’m not saying that you’re stupid – but smart people can do stupid things from time to time. If you’re a smart person, this is one of those stupid things. Take it as a lesson learned.

And to both camps of people, pro-Dawkins fan-boys and anti-Dawkins concern trolls, who screwed this one up – this may just be one small screw up in an otherwise excellent skeptical track record (I’m assuming this is the case for Massimo Pigliucci – whom like Rebecca, I have no shortage of respect for). If so, admit it, forgive yourself, learn and incorporate this learning into your future analysis.

However, for some of you it could also be one in a line of repeated failures.

If it is – another in a line of failure – please consider that you may be competing for air with skeptics more competent than yourself. How do you see yourself helping skepticism? By lecturing skeptics who are better at skepticism than you? By drawing attention away from best practice skepticism, just to highlight your own questionable work?

I’ll tell you what doesn’t help skepticism – vain posturing. If you’re one of these concern-trolling or fan-boy breeds of not-very-good-skeptic, and you still care about the skeptic movement, here’s what you can do.

One – Stop wasting time conversing across other skeptics and telling them how to do what they’re better at and instead use that time to develop your critical thinking skills. Not only will you be able to give more to skepticism, but you’ll benefit personally as well.

Two – Find skeptics with a good track record for factual accuracy (like Rebecca Watson, Dr Rachie and a host of others) and until your wares are worth promoting, start promoting their work instead.

Skepticism isn’t supposed to be an exercise in posturing, self-promotion and in-house politics.

Could we have some decorum now?

~ Bruce

* Update (20/04/2010): A correction – I wrote “The Daily Terror”, when the original article was actually published in The Times.

A few weeks ago, although while busy, I was going to start-up a thread about the historicity of Jesus because the blog post where it was being discussed, wasn’t dedicated to the topic. The intended stimulus was to be a YouTube video with Christopher Hitchens replying to Dinesh DeSouza about why the question of Socrates existence doesn’t matter compared to that of Jesus (one deals in argument, the other in revealed truth couched in divine authority), and the reason why Hitchens believes there may have been a Jesus under the mythology.

It wouldn’t have been a long post, but it would have provided a place where the afore-mentioned discussion could have taken place.

Now I was too busy to join in at any great length (the same reason why the historicity of Jesus thread never took off, and still sits in my drafts bin), but as far as I could tell from keeping an eye on things, people were being polite and there were no complaints. Even though John was doing a lot to politely entertain off-topic discussion.

You’d think that’d keep people happy.

Apparently not. In an article entitled “why debating atheists online is a fruitless pursuit”, Steve Kryger tells us…

“I’ve kept an eye on a debate on the Thinkers’ Podium website…”

(Steve Kryger, 2010)

Now the only atheists in the debate in question were John and yours truly, and I wasn’t really a contender – I just politely allowed the increasingly off-topic discussion to continue on my blog. John was pretty much the only atheist debater, so I guess this means that what Steve is saying, at least in this instance, is that debating John is a fruitless pursuit.

Given John’s patience, I think the least Steve could have done is said thanks for the discussion!

But no. Apparently John, along with the thread, gets lumped in with three choice comments Steve quotes from The Sydney Morning Herald.

“When reasoned debate is confronted by unreasonable faith, it is hardly surprising that the standard of the discussion is lowered. But to blame the reasoned debater for that outcome is surely unfair.”

“Let’s put Richard Dawkins’s comment about Steve Fielding in perspective. Dawkins had just sat next to a man – a senator, no less – who weakly and ineloquently confirmed on national television his belief that the earth is about 6000 years old. The real issue here is how anyone espousing such a belief and all that comes with it, particularly someone who makes decisions affecting all of us, escapes with a mere name-calling.”

“Neil Ormerod says ridicule does not pass for reasoned argument when it comes to considering candidates for sainthood, yet considers a reasoned argument to be: ”If medicine can’t yet account for it, it must have been God.” Ridicule is exactly what he should expect.”

(Steve Kryger, 2010)

It’s not exactly the worst company to be lumped in with. There’s nothing to get worked up about with respect to the first quote.

The second quote, is frankly, quite fair. Calling an individual senator (or Tony Blair for that matter) stupid, for venturing a stupid idea, isn’t exactly outside the bounds of normal discussion and therefore can hardly be indicative of a special problem with atheists – the only thing you can criticise Dawkins for on this matter is not being a complete saint (unlike the rest of us?) and for not having the rhetorical flair of Paul Keating. (Furthermore, you can’t reasonably construe a specific criticism levelled at an individual Christian as a general statement about Christians).

And if Paul Keating laid into Steve Fielding, would you then take his commentary as damning everyone who’s tribally Catholic? No double standards need apply, thanks.

As for ridicule – the mere act of pointing out that an idea or behaviour is ridiculous, is an act of ridicule. Democracy needs such ridicule of ideas and behaviours that are evident in the public square – which in the matter of sainthood was the case after our Prime Minister entered the discussion and effectively endorsed the sainthood of Mary MacKillop.

You can’t automatically equate this ridicule with abuse, and there are a host of spurious conclusions that don’t follow as well.

The general attitude of atheists towards Christians seems to be “We don’t have to be polite because you’re stupid”.

(Steve Kryger, 2010)

Now Steve didn’t just reach this straw man from the above quotes and John’s polite behaviour alone. Oh no.

He lists a number of articles as influential, including (surprise, surprise) Andrew Bolt’s utterly wrong-headed accounts, Melanie Phillips’ misleading jeremiad and some of Barney Zwartz’s problematic accounts. All of which have been compromised by bias, errors of fact and fanciful moral posturing. (At least Barney made an unequivocal retraction on one of these errors – which is better than Andrew Bolt’s non-retraction).

Being on the 17th of March, Steve’s post was on the cusp of the breaking of the story about how misleading these articles were, so you can forgive him somewhat for being mislead. Somewhat… You can see from the lead-in Steve makes on the topic, if you navigate back into his earlier posts, he was waiting for these consoling conclusions. And you don’t see him correcting his stance later on.

Furthermore, when selecting quotes from the comments threads of articles, why didn’t he notice the contributions made by his fellow critics of atheists. Applying the same standard when selecting quotes would have him choosing gems like…

“I’d bundle them all up with Paul Keating(aka the ugly mouth) and send them all off to some Muslim land marked “Never to be returned”” – Echo, 17th march.

“What I think is far less in doubt, is that if a vote had of been (sic) allowed on the 1935 Nuremberg Laws of Nazi Germany, Deveny’s type would have voted resoundingly in the laws favour!!” – Kiwi, 16th march.

…and…

“I can’t stand Catherine Deveney (sic). I saw Q&A;last night and she was so rude and arrogant. She is the reason why so many men decide to stay single.” – George P, 16th march.

Well, at least one of them is able to criticise Paul Keating! (Too bad Echo is too far cruder than Keating or Dawkins to be able to criticise free of hypocrisy).

Notably, all these comments are from only a couple of the threads of articles Steve linked to – I could go on. Oh, how I could go on! Only the comment by Echo can reasonably be assumed to be free from a supposedly fair scanning for quotes – being early on the 17th, but perhaps not before Steve posted his article.

At any rate, Steve’s obvious double standards aside, his conclusion – that the general attitude towards Christians seems to be “We don’t have to be polite because you’re stupid”, is unsupported. It’s not supported by the spurious articles he links to. It’s not supported by the quotes he cites.

Steve accusation is not in any way supported by the discussion in the thread of this blog that he linked to. Discussion here was quite polite, and frankly, quite generous to a fault.

And this is why debating with Christians like Steve Kryger is fruitless. (Note, I’m being far more specific in my scope that Steve is).

If you give them time and a polite forum, they won’t thank you for it, even if they aren’t entitled to it to begin with. They’ll misconstrue ridicule of an idea (essential in public discussion), as personal attacks.

They’ll misconstrue valid, personal criticism of individuals as smearing of an entire group of people. Yet they’ll damn and smear their interlocutors, like John, without a fair hearing.

They’ll hold their hands out for comforting allegations against their interlocutors, without due consideration of the truth of these allegations. And they won’t take into account the behaviour of people on their side of the debate when claiming the moral high ground of the home team.

A properly functioning civil discussion doesn’t brook this kind of mental gymnastics. Honesty is the coinage of the realm.

And this is why apologetics of this style – the kind that puts words in other people’s mouths, applies uneven standards and makes baseless accusations – has to withdraw from debate with atheists engaging in genuine, civil discussion (as ably demonstrated by John – read it – John’s not just being civil, but downright nice). It’s bankrupt. It can’t meet the price of admission – i.e. being honest.

All this kind of apologetics does is console its adherents with fanciful narratives about why they’re not ‘barbarians’ like everyone else, allowing them to hold their nose high in indignation. Safe from having to listen to members the unwashed masses like poor old John.

To be honest, it seems a lot like what the likes of Steve Kryger accuses Dawkins of.

Projection anyone?

Maybe I’ll start that historicity of Jesus thread another time, when I feel generous again.

~ Bruce

As a part of Easter messages in Australia, atheists have copped an earful.

My first thoughts, aside from a mild irritation brought on by the sheer silliness of the claims, were that this was a beautiful thing. Yes.

I still feel this way today.

Dr Jensen

It was reported that Sydney Anglican Archbishop Dr Jensen, as part of his Easter address started out with a critique of atheists, that included sentiments along the lines of…

“It represents the latest version of the human assault on God, born out of resentment that we do not in fact rule the world and that God calls on us to submit our lives to him.”

(Miles Godfrey, ABC, 2010)

Oh dear…

I’m not offended. How could I be? It’s like watching Emperor Palpatine lose the ‘Yo Momma!’ fight on Robot Chicken Star Wars. Ah… Ah… Ah… Well… Ah… Yo Momma hates God!

And it’s open to the most delicious reductio.

Dr Jensen’s Christianity represents the latest version of the human assault on The Flying Spaghetti Monster, born out of resentment that we do not in fact rule the world and that the FSM calls on us to submit our lives to him. Submission to the laws of the FSM which conveniently coincide with my own opinions.

Flattering? No. But it should give any Christians who share Dr Jenson’s sentiments towards atheists, an idea of how silly his remarks look to the godless.

The fact that these ludicrous ideas about atheists are held by one so respected and educated (even if a bit too conservative on industrial relations and the ethics of science), someone so mainstream, is telling. This is why I welcome Dr Jensen’s remarks.

Mr Pell

In addition to some pretty questionable historicism about Rome and Christianity, wherein it was reported that George Pell claimed that in relation to a host of Roman ills, “Christianity changed all this” (in relation to a host of then Christian norms, didn’t Rome change “all of this”?), George Pell reportedly belittled the role of the godless with a particularly silly statement.

“But we find no community services sponsored by the atheists.”

(AAP, 2010)

Mr Pell may be controversial, but he’s no pariah. At least in as far as public discussion goes – he’s taken seriously even if his own congregation aren’t particularly fond of him.

And even allowing scope for interpretation, in case he’s become victim to the ‘Pope… Nazi’ effect (even though his remarks weren’t off-the-cuff like Dawkins’), it’s hard to find an interpretation any less silly. At least I can’t find one.

On-off, over the last ten years, I’ve been a volunteer for the Salvation Army, and I’m an atheist. My mother, an atheist, works for Centrecare – the Australian Catholic welfare agency. I wonder if George Pell’s sermon will be cause for awkwardness when she returns to work next Tuesday.

Non-church-based community services like ITShare, that frankly do better work than the church alternative, community services that don’t turn away support from atheists (or anyone else), are well worth the attention of the George Pell’s of the world. They do their good work in spite of two major obstacles.

1. Churches have an advantage – they have traditionally been seen as a source of welfare and have historically been a focal point for people’s good will, theist or not. This has resulted in a monolithic welfare infrastructure that newer providers have to compete with.
2. The playing field is still rigged. It’s easier to become a community service provider if you’re church based. This historical advantage attracts more tender from government (atheists do pay taxes), and the automatic religious tax-exempt status makes it easier going than for secular charities who have to jump through all sorts of hoops to demonstrate not-for-profit status. Church based institutions simply aren’t held to the same standard of accountability, and are the beneficiaries of greater government largess.

If you keep this in mind, along with the fact that non-church based community services don’t usually advertise that they aren’t church-based, and that atheist sponsors and volunteers are largely happy to use the existing infrastructure and to work alongside religious people, you’ll understand why you don’t see “atheist charity” left, right and centre. Atheists have been quiet contributors to the welfare of a secular Australia.

But it’s not just George Pell that thinks this. And even if most Australians don’t think it, they don’t need to in order for the problem to have unacceptable consequences. All it takes is a minority with institutional power, and a public that doesn’t realise that there’s a problem.

I once dropped into SA Unions (then still the UTLC) for a chat with their then youth officer a few years ago. I told her of a workplace in Adelaide run by a powerful member of the Paradise Community Church congregation that at the time, filtered the non-Christians out of their workforce. In response to which she told me that resolving discrimination complaints against religious not-for-profits, were common business.

I can remember having my own naivety broken by this – I was talking about a private, for-profit enterprise. I hadn’t entertained the notion that discrimination was happening amongst the altruistic, supposedly moderate, end of Christian not-for-profits.

Eventually, seeing the relative difficulties non-church not-for-profits had in setting up shop, seeing a couple of non-Catholic teachers being fired from secular roles in federally funded Catholic schools, and later finding out from a appalled staff member, that I’d been denied a secular job position by a religious not-for profit on the grounds of my atheism, the truth hit home. There’s a problem.

Heck, it’s not just that people are being discriminated against that’s the problem. It’s not good for the provision of community service. Things turned out more or less okay for me; I wasn’t that set back by the job refusal. What was absurd was that it turned out that I wasn’t replaced by anyone; the needed, specialised skills that I could have provided were denied the service recipients. It hurt their operation more than it hurt me!

If you really care about the provision of quality community service, then this has to get to you. This, as opposed to just being discriminated against, is why it gets to me.

The support given to religious community services by taxpayers and voluntarily by atheist individuals, and the support of non-church-based community services by atheists, is taken far too much for granted. This occurs at an institutional level, and thanks to poor awareness I think it’s allowed to do harm where institutions are mandated to do good.

Reform to the apparatus of secular pluralism is needed in Australia – especially where taxation, government funding, the church, and not-for profit organisations are concerned.

I welcome George Pell’s comments, bringing attention to the matter. Even if he’s wrong. Especially because he’s wrong.

Mr Fisher

Then we have Anthony Fisher, who is apparently tipped as George Pell’s future replacement, reportedly saying…

“‘Last century we tried godlessness on a grand scale and the effects were devastating; Nazism, Stalinism, Pol-Pottery, mass murder and broken relationships: all promoted by state-imposed atheism or culture-insinuated secularism.’”

(Jacqueline Maley, 2010)

Oh dear. Stalinism and “Pol-Pottery” weren’t pushed by atheism; Stalinism and “Pol-Pottery” pushed atheism. It’s like saying that canned peas pushed Soviet communism; i.e. back-to-front.

You honestly and sincerely have the conviction that canned peas are a good thing? Oh no! We can’t have you going too far in our culture; you may turn our nation into a Soviet state!

And as for Nazi ideology being born of atheism, that’s just plain stupid.

For a start, Nazism, and European totalitarianism of the time in general, were born of a hodge-podge starting conditions – an array of causes. Singling any one cause out is inherently wrong-headed to begin with, but it gets worse.

Nazi ideology selectively borrowed from Christian culture and had plans for its own bizarre Aryan supernaturalism. Mein Kampf talked of the virtue of mandatory religious education in schools. And the anti-Semitism that was integral to the holocaust, where did that come from? Which particular institution had been pushing that particular non-virtue for over a thousand years prior to World War II? Where did the Nazis borrow the idea of the collective guilt of Jews for the death of Christ? Hmmm?

There is obviously a case to be made for the role of modernism in the rise of early 20th century totalitarian ideologies. There is obviously a case to be made that the works of individual philosophers who happened to be atheists were a part of the bigger mix – Marx more obviously for Sovietism, Nietzsche not so obviously for the totalitarian right.

But these instances of atheism are far from the only conditions the totalitarian ideologies were born from, and as far as I can see there’s little indication that it was the godless aspect of these philosophies that led to disaster. Marx, in commenting that religion was “The Opiate of The Masses”, was alluding to its pervasiveness as something that can’t be wiped out. Contrary to some readings.

People seem to forget that living conditions aren’t what they are today. The start of the 20th century was a period of deep unrest with a lot to contribute in the way of angry, authoritarian motivations.

As for Fisher’s implication that godless societies are doomed to selfishness and totalitarianism – this is just empirically false. Denmark and Sweden are largely without God, but their societies are particularly harmonious, and demonstrate a greater than normal level of cooperative norms (i.e. they value welfare more than most nations). Clearly Fisher is wrong.

If Mr Fisher is to become the head of Australia’s Catholics, even if he isn’t well liked by Australia’s Catholics, then he’s likely to be treated with a degree of deference and taken seriously. Yet he harbours absurd notions about a good portion of the Australian population and as he has shown, isn’t afraid to use his position to foment sectarianism. This deference is a problem.

Thankyou and Happy Easter!

Dr Jensen, Mr Pell, Mr Fisher – I thank you for these gifts. Quite sincerely.

For too long atheists in Australia, especially the noisy ones, have been asked why they’re complaining as if it were self-evident that we live in a society that at least if not made up of a majority of tolerant, secular people, was free of institutionalised sectarianism. At least to the extent of it not being a problem worth complaining about.

This, more than many things, has been an obstacle for Australian atheists trying to get a point across.

Easter of 2010 can now be celebrated when this point of public debate was decided. There is a problem and now it’s obvious.

The message, even if wrong, is welcome.

This isn’t cause for mere atheist triumphalism – a recognition that Australia’s religious leaders are rattled. This isn’t something for atheists to get angry about – it’s too pathetic for that – anyone not already sold on the message of the atheist bogeyman isn’t going to take this bile on board. Australian atheists don’t have to worry about being fired or lynched by Christians any more than they did last week.

This is a win for secularism. Thanks to the credibility of Dr Jensen, Mr Pell and Mr Fisher, the issue – sectarian privilege and contempt over and toward atheists – is now out there in the mainstream; open for discussion. It was never a fringe concern, and now for the first time, it really doesn’t look like one.

I really, quite sincerely, thank these men for sacrificing part of their holy weekend to make functional secularism (and the secular provision of welfare – thank you Mr Pell!) a hot topic. Couldn’t have done it without you, guys!

Dr Jensen, Mr Pell, Mr Fisher – Happy Easter!

~ Bruce

Update (4/04/2010): Edited a few errors here and there.

First off the bat is… Religion.

Bluntly holding the Church’s face to the mirror, Richard Dawkins lays into the current Pope over the recent child abuse scandals – to me there’s something of a “prove me wrong” about Dawkins’ latest articles about the Catholic Church. There’s more of the same between Hitchens and Donohue. And more by Hitchens again.

It appears that the Vienna Boy’s Choir is now being dragged into the quagmire of accusations and deflection as well. (Try not to laugh at the author’s name – it’s not a joke).

And yes, in the face of it all, it appears that The Pope is playing the victim card. For being criticised. How was criticism not deserved? How is this criticism worse than what it criticises? Even if you made the most outlandish criticism with poor regard for the details, that wouldn’t seem as bad to me, as the offence committed under the most reasonably charitable interpretation of events. This isn’t ethics, this is PR.

And if this moral turpitude isn’t bad enough his holy-rollerness is yet to make a statement on Uganda’s proposed ‘kill the gays’ bill, popular with conservative Christendom in that part of the world (and in Rwanda). How hard is it? How much more serious is everything else on the agenda?

In all of this, have you spared a thought for Sinead O’Connor? Remember how she was castigated for speaking out about this very matter almost 20 years ago? I think it’s reasonable that some people owe her an apology. Makes you wonder what other apologies will have to be made in another 20 years from now – all that strident criticism!

A bit depressing, really.

On a more light-hearted matter, Gary Ablett Snr. has taken to atheists, evolutionists and the general decline of society with his interpretation gospel. Or someone else’s – it seems a good part of it was copied. Oz Atheist has further analysis.

On religion, evolution and ethics, Russell Blackford discusses ethics without God.

Daniel Dennett has been pondering the matter of priests who are no longer believers and the various dilemma this poses. Perplexing.

And that’s enough religion and related matters for now…

The Internet Filter

The Electronic Frontiers has generated a list of the top ten lies about Conroy’s Internet Filter. Something to start you on your way to researching the topic, if you plan to look further into it.

It seems that our friends over in the US aren’t particularly impressed with the planned Internet Filter. And apparently Conroy hasn’t got the message.

Media

Jason Wilson writes about the Murdoch paywall not necessarily being a doomed enterprise. I hadn’t considered the potential to increase advertising revenue this tactic may present. Like many good ideas, it seems rather obvious in retrospect.

Other Tidbits

Aubrey de Grey gives an interesting TED talk on why he argues that the first person who’ll reach an age of 1000 has already been born. (Video).

Some nice photography of insects covered in morning dew.

…

And that’s about that for this tab purge. In case you were wondering, no I didn’t make it to the end of this post without Firefox crashing. Which suggests that maybe I should again stop using Firefox.

~ Bruce

Here’s the really, really, really simplified run-down of the benefits and short-comings of software like this.

• It’s fallible. It will produce false positives. It will let the occasional unwanted content through. But so will Conroy’s Internet Filter.
• You don’t have oversight over what makes the blocklist. But that’s true of Conroy’s Internet Filter as well.
• It doesn’t encourage the horse-trading of votes in the senate. Conroy’s Internet Filter probably will.
• It can be bypassed by anyone with the know-how. So can Conroy’s Internet Filter.
• It (Windows 7) costs money. But Conroy’s Internet Filter does and will – in tax dollars and in ISP costs.
• You can switch it off if it gets in the way of legitimate work. You can’t turn off Conroy’s Filter.
• Opting in for this as a Microsoft support feature doesn’t place an imposture on your neighbour. Conroy’s Internet Filter will.
• Microsoft’s Parental Control feature is an relatively elegant, simple solution to a problem. Conroy’s Internet Filter is a particularly costly, clumsy, inefficient piece of technology.

Isn’t that enough already?

~ Bruce

Andrew Bolt, whose work is criticised in this post, is a member of my extended family.

I’ve never met him in person, our paths merely having been near misses. But outside of my own family nucleus, his sister’s household is easily the family residence I frequent the most. She’s a good person and her husband, a cousin of mine, is almost a brother to me.

This compromises me in some ways. On occasion, I’ve consciously withdrawn from discussion of his writing, simply because things became too personal. I have an unwillingness to generate any ill-feeling in the family, and that includes Andrew.

I suspect I’d be more excoriating if I didn’t have this association.

When you come to something with different preconceptions, you can’t always be guaranteed to walk away with the same conclusions.

Something to keep in mind when considering what I’m writing here.

‘Pope Nazi’

A prominent atheist at a prominent convention of atheists, using the words ‘Pope’ and ‘Nazi’ in the same sentence, was bound to cause a stir. Independently, both words can provoke preconceived notions that can frame a discussion before one even knows what’s being discussed.

I’ve been going to write a post about the whole ‘Pope Nazi’ affair since earlier this the week when the misquotes first became apparent. Like Andrew, I didn’t go to the convention. In undertaking an analysis of the media reporting of the convention, I’ve relied upon correspondence with a number of convention goers – notes for a book I’m trying to write. Given my methodology, I thought it prudent not to go with first appearances or accounts.

When I first heard of the words ‘Pope’ and ‘Nazi’ being uttered by Dawkins, an account that Barney Zwartz of The Age appeared gob-smacked in response, and having seen this kind of thing happen before, I expected confusion. That’s how I framed the issue in my mind from the outset – those were my expectations.

The emerging response was for a number of journalists to report that Richard Dawkins had called Pope Benedict XVI a Nazi. Tracey Spicer, Barney Zwartz, Melanie Phillips, and importantly, Andrew Bolt, amongst others, reported this as fact. As it turned out, this was wrong.

Andrew, in spite of the evidence of his error, has once again dug in his heels.

How does Andrew swat aside criticism of his mistake this time? In responding to a video of the alleged slur, Andrew expressed incredulity at The Australian Skeptics for not seeing Dawkins ‘sneering’ at Pope Benedict XVI. Going on to say…

“Which only proves that these sceptics aren’t sceptical at all in rushing to believe what suits them best. A sad case of confirmation bias, I’m afraid, but we’ve already seen on Insiders how non-sceptical the Skeptics really are when it comes to their preferred faiths, such as global waming (sic).”

(Andrew Bolt, ‘None so blind as the atheist who will not see‘, 2010)

I’m sure this will go down well with the atheophobes in Andrew’s audience who insist that us Godless types are just rebelling against an apparently self-evident God. (If not the creationists, history and climatology deniers that make up a good portion of Andrew’s audience).

Andrew is being bloody-minded. The video clearly shows Dawkins briefly listing people who are in line for canonisation such as Mary MacKillop, and when he gets to Pope Pius XII, who was controversially elevated to ‘Venerable’ last year, he falters with his name and off-the-cuff, being pressed for an answer, finishes off with ‘Nazi.. whatever…’ after stumbling with ‘Pope…’ The ‘sneer’ is imaginary; ‘cheer’ would seem a more accurate interpretation of the tone from where I’m sitting.

Watch it yourself.

For pity’s sake, being recognised as a saint by the Catholic Church is official recognition that someone is in Heaven – Pope Benedict XVI isn’t even dead yet. How on Earth could Prof. Dawkins be talking about Benedict XVI? He was talking about Pius XII – the WWII Pope who refused to condemn, or officially recognise the genocide even when it was reported to him by his own clergy.

Accurate? There is enough established history to make this a fair off the cuff remark. To go into minutiae over this is to take the remark far too literally.

The best rhetoric? No.

But imperfect delivery of off-the-cuff rhetoric, isn’t want Dawkins is being charged with. Andrew is alleging barbarism!

My interest in all of this is not to defend Richard Dawkins. He’s quite able to do that himself if he feels the need. Being in the process of writing a book about the misrepresentation of atheists (with sections dedicated to how prominent atheists are misrepresented to draw inferences about atheists more generally) my interest should be clear; if I’m defending anyone, I’m defending atheists against misrepresentation.

Andrew, and others, have used the misquote to draw inferences about attendees at the atheist convention.

Interestingly enough, Andrew mentions cognitive bias. Before I even read this tripe from Andrew, I wanted to talk about cognitive bias in relation to the misquote. So let’s talk about cognitive bias.

Cognitive bias

Upon waking on Monday, I found I had a series of tweets directed at me, a friendly challenge for me to defend Prof. Dawkins; which I did at some length (albeit somewhat facetiously). I needed more information before drawing a conclusion. At this point, I didn’t even know which Pope Prof. Dawkins was addressing as ‘Pope… Nazi… Whatever…’.

Even if he’d called Pope Benedict XVI ‘Pope Nazi’, I didn’t think it impossible that he was being facetious, or otherwise not actually alleging that Benedict XVI was a Nazi. Improbable, perhaps, but not entirely impossible in my opinion. So I waited for more details.

As events unfolded during the week, new details arose, I was scooped on the early reporting of the ‘Pope Nazi’ misquote by the talented young Jason Ball (who unlike myself, was actually at the event), so my focus shifted towards analysis more focused on how these mistakes could be made, what and who they served, and their consequences. (I’ll still be researching this well after I’ve published this post).

Then Andrew went and plonked himself in the middle of the issue. I’d rather it was someone else.

Before the misquote story broke, in questioning a number of people who attended the convention, something interesting became apparent. The people I questioned were all atheists. They were all non-hostile to Prof. Dawkins. I’m left with the impression that these people were able to receive Dawkins in good faith.

Yet, from memory, all bar one thought Dawkins was talking about Pope Benedict XVI.

Now this sample of people who I interviewed wasn’t large enough to draw reliable inferences about the views of all or even  people at the convention. I don’t pretend to know the distribution of the views of the entire population of convention goers. (It may be informative for future events of this kind to poll attendees on a range of issues – if only to counter media misinformation).

But this doesn’t mean that no implications can be drawn. I think that this exercise shows that it is at least conceivably possible for people to misinterpret these things even with the best of intentions, and even when witnessing them first hand. A group polarisation effect perhaps?

In alerting Andrew to the mistake that he’d made, Ben Pobjie (who Andrew, with some cheek, refers to as ‘reader Ben Pobjie’ – Ben’s a talented writer of satire) wrote:

“Obviously, your opinion is your opinion and I’d never question your right to it, but since it’s pretty clear that you are incorrect about the “Pope Nazi” reference (and having been at the conference myself, I can confirm that your interpretation was incorrect), it would be very gracious of you to publish a correction in your next column.

It’s perfectly understandable you got this wrong, of course, because Prof. Dawkins’s remarks were reported wrongly across the media – but now that you know, I’m assuming you will be keen to correct the misconception.”

(Ben Pobjie, 2010)

As Michael Shermer sometimes likes to point out, we’re all human and we all have biases. The group of convention attendees I questioned makes this quite clear. But what kind of bias?

There is so much exaggeration of what Prof. Dawkins and other ‘New Atheists’ actually say and write out there, it’s not hard to imagine an observer expectancy effect. The critics of Dawkins et. al. coaching people to find offence, hence helping make sure they find it.

The observer expectancy effect is frequently used as an example by skeptics to demonstrate cognitive bias. For example in the case of imagined ‘backmasking‘, instead of telling an audience what is supposedly hidden backwards on an album, you simply play it backwards first, then tell them what to listen for and play it back again. The before and after are markedly different – something that really exposes what’s going on inside your head.

“You can’t miss it when I tell you what’s there.” – Indeed!

In discussion with one of the attendees of the convention who just happens to have psychology qualifications, the idea was floated that Barney Zwartz may have experienced some kind of aural pareidolia that caused him to hear something he expected to hear. Such was the degree of his misquote.

“‘…well, the real theologians like Pope Nazi believe in miracles.”

(Barney Zwartz, 2010)

It’s not even a close approximate of what Dawkins actually said and much, much more than you could reasonably get away with by way of paraphrase.

Barney has had the good sense to retract the misquote, although it’s a little hard to find buried in all the comments. Maybe now that Barney has learnt from this experience, he could interrupt Gerard Henderson’s attempt at schooling Prof. Dawkins, and get Hendo to home-school himself on checking sources.

There are of course other cognitive biases than those I’ve mentioned that could be at work, and I’m in no position to draw strong conclusions. Whatever they may be, the take-home message in all of this is that when you come to something with different preconceptions, you can’t always be guaranteed to walk away with the same conclusions. Which makes it all the more important when making these kinds of accusations, to check your ideas against those of others, check with witnesses and double check your sources.

Intellectual myopia

The one-eyed troll doesn’t like the two-eyed dogma of the ‘Global Waming’ faith! He’ll ‘wam’ you with his staff if you aren’t careful. (Source: Deror).

We all have something of the one-eyed troll inside of us, but I’m not sure as an explanation, that it’s going to be able to get Andrew off the hook for much longer. Since accusing The Young Skeptics of confirmation bias, Andrew has gone on to make a non-retraction, along with a thinly veiled accusation of equivocation levelled at Prof. Dawkins.

“Like many journalists and, I’d guess, many of the audience, I assumed from Richard Dawkins’ slur that he was referring to the German Pope Benedict when he sneered at “Pope Nazi”.

Dawkins now insists he was vilifying another Pope (and also with monstrous unfairness) – and isn’t sorry at all, either, for his playground insult of Senator Steve Fielding…”

(Andrew Bolt, ‘I was wrong: Dawkins is still a barbarian‘, 2010)

You’ll notice that Andrew doesn’t actually state that Prof. Dawkins was calling Pius XII, ‘Pope… Nazi… Whatever…’ Andrew states that ‘Dawkins now insists…’

Now insists? What else has he insisted? There is no sign of Prof. Dawkins actually taking a different position to this, other than some poor quotations.

And given that Ben Pobjie had already pointed out prior to Andrew’s previous post on the matter, that it was understandable that Andrew could have got this wrong due to the ‘Pope Nazi’ meme spreading across the media, why is Andrew raising the matter as a defence only now? Shouldn’t he have addressed it when he was first made aware of it?

‘But everyone else was doing it, and I knew two posts ago, and I’m not actually retracting it now anyway’ to me, doesn’t exactly evoke the kind of understanding that a proper retraction would. Rather it paints Andrew into a corner – the ‘everyone else was saying the same thing’ defence doesn’t work twice, and now he’s wasted it.

Does he think the line about Senator Fielding serves as some kind of insurance?

For pity’s sake, someone calling an MP more stupid than an earthworm for saying something silly, is hardly big news. It happens all the time. We all do it. What makes Prof. Dawkins’ utterance so special? When Ex-PM Paul Keating lets go with his particular brand of insult, it hardly draws this kind of attention.

I really wish Andrew wouldn’t keep doing this to himself.

~ Bruce

P.S. I’m sure I’ll be ‘wamed’ about a typo or two. It’s 4am here in Adelaide, and I’ve been furiously editing through the wee hours. Hey, it’s a blog, not a book – publish now, clean up later. Need sleep now.

Update (21/03/2010): Andrew has yesterday, in his (alleged) final word on the matter, come around to referring to the ‘Pope… Nazi… whatever’ quote as having to do with Pope Pius XII. It’s been an interesting trek this past week; wrong quote; alleging wrong quote is correct even after being shown evidence; non-retraction with the claim that quote is now supposed to mean what it always meant since the beginning and finally, referring to it correctly as if there had never been any doubt. But with a failed reductio as a cherry on top.

That’s right. If Pius XII is a nazi for not calling the genocide a genocide, then Richard Dawkins is al Qaeda for a point he made at the convention. Namely that if you are too afraid to challenge Islam, then you should at least be honest and do so out of fear, and not pretend to do so out of respect. Of course, Bolt mangles the meaning somewhat, and manages to catch himself in a Godwin.

What would Andrew have us believe? That Islam is rushing across Europe, crushing nations and leaving death camps in its wake?

At any rate, here’s Richard Dawkins, going easy on Islam. Or not. Make up your own mind.

The flip side is that not being there, I’m relatively free from group polarizing effects. But that’s not good enough, really. Will have to wait from some empirical content before continuing. I haven’t found any suitable YouTube videos yet.

What I did see on YouTube, a couple of weeks ago thanks to Shane, was a nice clip from our childhoods. So without much ado, I’ll just post it so you can have a break from my usual waffle.

If this doesn’t make you feel guilty for laughing at Ronnie James Dio, then you have no heart.

~ Bruce

If you’ve wondered why vocalise atheists ridicule so much, here’s why.

Broadly speaking, they have a problem with the way things are being run. The necessitates criticism. Such criticism necessarily involves refutation and all refutation in essence involves pointing out the ridiculous. Which is what ridicule is – pointing out that something is ridiculous.

You can’t avoid it, other than to shut up and not complain – which is then necessarily what people ask for when they ask for ridicule in the public domain to stop.

The only time that ridicule is problematic is when the refutation that it comes from is for some reason invalid. Any further problem, such as tone and tact, aren’t a problem with ridicule per se.

All ridiculous ideas are deserving of ridicule – this is self-evident. All ridiculous behaviours are deserving of ridicule. The only difficulties involve questions of degree, context, who by and consequence.

You wouldn’t tell someone who’s life immediately depended on them believing in God, that there was no God and why. As Daniel Dennett says “Stop that crow!” – a reference to a thought experiment in which the crows prematurely told Dumbo that the feather he was given wasn’t magic. (Without which he would have failed to fly and have plummeted to his death.)

That’s not an appropriate time for ridicule.

Context can be messy. Does it need saying now? Will you bore the pants off of your audience? Or part of your audience? Is there some other positive content you would be better off investing your time in? Have you been putting off ridiculing what you should have been ridiculing years ago?

And the question of “who by?”, in the case of religion is probably best answered in a Jeffersonian light; acknowledging that there isn’t a right of inquiry into privately held beliefs (although in this setting, ridicule of one’s own ideas is still a good idea in general – critical thinking), but that public manifestations of faith are fair game for criticism by anyone. We all have an interest in the public sphere, and hence we all have a right to criticise. The idea that a group should stop what other people get to take for granted, is to argue for a stratified social structure.

And no caste of ideas deserves preference over another either – politics, menus, religion, musical taste or whatever.

There is of course, as case to be made for measured tone.

Religious homophobia is a repugnant thing. People who can’t disentangle their religious prejudice from matters of equality, behave in a repugnant fashion. It’s not some huge breach of required tolerance to call religious homophobia a stinking pile of shit, nor its practitioners ethically stunted bigots. It’s not beyond the pale.

It’s no more unacceptable to find the concept of the crucifixion of Christ obscene, than it is to be offended by the killing of cattle for meat.

It’s perfectly within the bounds of civil discourse to complain that the prejudicial view that science can’t inform our view of human nature, makes Francis Collins an inappropriate candidate for the head of the NIH – which funds research into matters of human nature. NIH Grant HD-18381 supported research that went into Steven Pinker’s ‘The Stuff of Thought’ – which surprise, surprise, draws conclusions about aspects of human nature. Work on psychopathy also, inevitably, draws conclusions about aspects of human nature as well.

But after making criticisms of Collins, Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers and Sam Harris were roasted by many, including Ken Miller, of prejudice against Collins for being a Christian. Which is silly considering that some of the silly ideological views of Stephen Jay Gould are also prejudicial of the mentioned works; if an atheist in this respect Gouldian were proposed as the head of the NIH, you can be damn sure those evil atheists would be ridiculing their ideas as well. (It was Gould’s ideological intrusions on science that cause much, if not most of his rivalry with Richard Dawkins).

Calling Ken Miller a “fuckwit” for example (not that I would), would be going far, far too far. Fortunately nobody who’s anybody, did. Calling his allegations dishonest and wrong however, would not be beyond the pale. And this is ridicule – Miller’s accusations were ridiculous.

Considering the very real consequences of this particular debate, and the level of acceptance of Ken Miller’s false account of the affair, and similar false allegations of bigotry against Christians, conduct like this deserves repeated ridicule. In other words it needs to be pointed out that the idea is ridiculous, as is the behaviour, and a certain about of rhetoric and criticism of character is not beyond the pale.

In relation to criticism of the public face of religion, The Global Atheist Convention in Melbourne is a suitable setting. Nobody in attendance is about to jump off a bridge, the audience isn’t likely to get bored (although apparently Tamas Pataki made a pretence at inclusiveness that didn’t go down well – not to mention he mangled the definition of atheism),

Yes, it can potentially get a bit boring. Yes, it can be poorly delivered. Yes, it can be done to the exclusion of better talking points. Yes, careless rhetoric can contribute to group polarisation. But none of this makes ridicule a bad thing in and of itself, nor does it automatically support claims by those with a vested interest, that a group of critics should steer their conversation in a certain way.

Critique of critique needs to be a bit more specific; what signs were there that boredom was a problem? How else could the same point have been couched? What was missed out on in lieu of ridicule? How was the group polarised and is this specific polarisation a problem? Why?

Something that tires me more than the most boring, pointless, repetitive ridicule is the seemingly endless repetition of calls for ridicule to end as if it’s an a priori truth that ridicule is a bad thing. It’s not!

~ Bruce

There was a post by one Chris Mulherin that got up my nose somewhat, over here. Here’s something I posted in the comments thread (albeit corrected for a couple of mistakes I’m slapping myself for at the moment).

Chris, before you start throwing the ‘New Atheism’ term around, you may just wish to know that the term first gained prominence in 1986 (hardly new), and was like now, used to smear atheists who spoke out of turn, alleging intolerance (where none was demonstrated), declaring dubious, totalitarian motives and so on. The author of the book first publicising the term, ‘The New Atheism’, Robert A. Morey, went on to brag about his advice to the Bush administration that they should nuke Mecca and Medina – and he was serious.

The contemporary usage of the term doesn’t seem to vary much in recent times either, as Tina Beattie’s ‘The New Atheists’ (2007) demonstrates – Just read the claim she makes about Daniel Dennett trying to keep the religious out of discussion of religion – by way of misquoting the opening chapters of his book ‘Breaking The Spell’. (Ostentatious in that properly quoted, she’d be forced to admit the contrary – that Dennett is engaging and encouraging religious people to participate in an exploration of religion as a natural phenomena). At least she isn’t asking anyone to nuke people, which I guess is something.

Madeleine Bunting used the term in a controversial article in The Guardian, where she used Sam Harris as an example of a ‘New Atheist’, misquoting his ethical speculations on torture and ethnic profiling to make it look like he supported torture and ethnic profiling. This rubbish is par for the course with critics of the so-called ‘New Atheism’.

And Chris, Dawkins is skeptical of the term ‘New Atheist’ himself, calling it ’so-called’ on several occasions. He did not, as you wrongly claim, use it to deliberately do anything – it’s not his device at all.

Here’s a hint for your stay at the convention – people at the convention will probably tend not to like being called a ‘New Atheist’, except perhaps ironically, subversively or tongue-in-cheek by in-group members. Think of it as kind of like another ‘N’ word that you probably wouldn’t want to yell out in Harlem, except not quite so extreme.

Furthermore, in future could you please give us some meaningful examples of where ‘…proponents of the new atheism often seem to turn to ridicule and belittling of those who they disagree with rather than respecting them’? And no, I don’t mean ridiculing ideas – a reductio ad absurdum does that necessarily, and we wouldn’t equate that with a lack of respect.

(And I don’t mean friendly jabs either.)

The atheist as angry, disrespectful and intolerant is a stereotype, so you’re going to have to be more specific and give specific examples if you want to come across as trustworthy, much less avoid propagating animus.

And for pity’s sake, when you talk about being throw to the lions when you’ve been invited by a bunch of friendly people, it makes you look like the kind of person who feels guilty for crossing the street to avoid someone who’s black – something that can be avoided by throwing out prejudicial assumptions and not crossing the street in the first place.

I’d wish you luck at the convention if I were a wish-thinker, so I’ll just hope you take some of this on-board instead.

(Me, Over Here, 2010)

Apparently Chris thinks that ‘New Atheism’ is a term that Richard Dawkins uses to activate and polarise the troops. Yeah, I know. Next “White Trash” will be a phrase that poor, white folk use to agitate themselves into class warfare against the fair and proper middle and upper class. Go figure.

There are other goodies I didn’t address. There’s the whole shifting the burden of proof, atheists being believers in the same sense as believers, atheist fundamentalism and other talking points that have been put to rest long ago. 1980s apologetics tropes that were the playthings of people on alt.atheism in the 1990s. You get the idea.

At least he didn’t call Dawkins a social Darwinist.

They’re getting less comments on their blog than I am, which is saying something, so why don’t you go and participate. Apparently Margaret is complaining about a lot of derision at the convention – no quotes of course – so continue to play nice (as I know you already do).

~ Bruce

I like his writing on evolutionary biology quite a lot; par for the course considering the ecology component of my science degree. I like his rebuttals of creationism. Again, par for the course.

I didn’t think ‘The God Delusion’ was a bad book at all, and I think that if you account for what I think is a flaw in his defining of religion (thankfully excluding “Einsteinian religion”, but not some other forms that he also doesn’t talk about in the book), a lot of the perceived slights and oversimplifications go away. That being said, I wasn’t more informed in my atheism as a result of reading it – others may have been.

I don’t know what I think of Richard Dawkins as a person, at least in as far as the possibility of me liking him. I haven’t met him yet, and even if I had, it wouldn’t have been enough for me to draw particularly meaningful conclusions.

I suspect I may like him if I were given the chance, but this is hardly fandom for pity’s sake. I’m not sure I’d like him, I’m not sure he’d like me and I’m not sure I’d actually care.

I avoid the whole “never meet your heros” dilemma by not having them in the first place.

Some other things he’s said about religion have been sublime criticism, and other things I think have tended towards the crap end of the spectrum. Maybe I’ll change my mind. Maybe I won’t.

On average, I think he’s above average when writing about atheism. And if you think I’m treading on Dawkins’ territory in passing this judgement – I’ve never been religious and without coercion, I knew I was an atheist by around age 8. I’m well within my own turf here, thanks. Nobody owns atheism anyway.

I’ve The God Delusion three times so far. “BUT THAT MAKES YOU A FAN!”

No it bloody well does not.

I’m going to read it a fourth, and possibly a fifth time over the next year, and with good reason. I think it was back in 2007 that both AV and myself mused that the response to The God Delusion was more informative (to us) than the book itself. This has been my position from the start and it’s my position now. The truth be told, I’m not entirely looking forward to these re-readings – I’ve got other things I could be reading for the first time.

Moreover, while I’m very interested in Dawkins’ writing on evolutionary biology, I’m also very interested in the reader response to his writing on religion. In order to do this I need to be very familiar with his writing about and views on religion.

I’ve got the essays, the articles and the books. I’ve watched the documentaries, lectures, seminars, interviews and debates. But this does not make me a fan.

The book I’m writing relies in good part upon my being able to accurately critique reader response – or put another way, to accurately be able to identify the religious memes that misrepresent atheists – including prominent atheists which naturally includes Richard Dawkins.

How on Earth am I supposed to do this without being familiar with the material that initiates the response?

So for people with preconceptions about Dawkins that I just happen to challenge; my extensive reading of Dawkins does not make me a fan, it just makes me harder working on the topic than you are.

Get over it. You’re going to have to find something else, something valid and altogether more honest, to dismiss my critique of your preconceptions.

Do you have any idea how silly people look to me when they accuse me of being a “Dawkins fan”?

~ Bruce

I’ve been a member of The Atheist Foundation of Australia since January of this year (the crowd getting this convention together alongside Atheist Alliance International). And while we’re on the topic, I’ve had another affiliation change since leaving the ALP last year (over Conroy’s duplicitous and underhanded pushing of his ludicrous Internet Filter). Nothing political. I’ve just joined the SA Writers’ Centre.

So yes, I’ve joined two disparate herds of cats this year. No political parties. Nothing with a central dogma.

At the very least, I haven’t signed up to anything that would obligate me not to bag the ‘Rise of Atheism’ convention. It’s a free-thought organisation and I’m a free-thinker.

Free-thought whingeing

For example, I think ‘Rise of Atheism’, as conference title go, is a pretty crass and poorly thought out piece of triumphal wank. I think ‘Global Atheist Convention 2010′ is good enough on its own, and frankly, better on its own period. It draws unfavourable comparisons to B-Movie titles. ‘Global Atheist Convention 2011: Return of The Thing That Wouldn’t Die After Being Killed, After Being Given A Proper Burial, After Being Killed Twice Before, After Becoming Undead, After Being Killed By An Angry Mob The First Time Around – The Prequel’, isn’t a title I’d look forward to.

Don’t get the impression that I wouldn’t have liked to have been free to go along. I’m particularly interested in what Leslie Cannold, Russell Blackford, A.C. Grayling, Tamas Pataki, Taslima Nasrin, Peter Singer and Kylie Sturgess have to say, and wouldn’t have minded catching Julian Morrow and Craig Reucassel, but there are others that I’ve heard enough of for my own good, and others who I think don’t necessarily warrant a hearing.

As much of a mouthpiece as Dan Barker is, and high as his IQ may be, I think his greatest contribution is either in giving others a voice. Or in telling us tales of life-as-a-Christian which would be better told by the more disadvantaged ex-Christian. The voice he can buy with the royalties he makes off of the material he created to indoctrinate children in the ways of evangelical Christianity, is privilege enough without giving him an additional soapbox. Freedom of Religion Foundation not withstanding.*

And Catherine Deveny? She doesn’t have anything new or particularly bright to bring to the discussion – anecdotes of recent disillusionment going out cheap by the dozen. She’s there as a comedian, which is problematic considering that she’s not particularly good at it. Sure, she shouldn’t be outcast on the grounds of prejudice, but that doesn’t mean she should be sought out to begin with. Getting to speak at this convention is a privilege that warrants merit.*

You can be confident that my independence of thought, as a freethinker, is not compromised by my affiliation. Not that being a member of the ALP ever stopped me from expressing my opinions either.

And now there’s that plug to consider.

Blatant plug

For $30, as a non-member you can obtain a subscription to ‘The Australian Atheist’ from The Atheist Foundation of Australia. Or of course, you can join for one year for $25 ($15 student/pensioner/unwaged) and sign up for electronic versions to be emailed to you, but then you’d have to sign off as accepting the constitution. In either case, you can look here for more details.

What reason would you possibly have for doing that? Well the next issue has me in it for one! (Cue embarrassing silence).

Okay. Well it’s an exclusive article I’ve written for ‘The Australian Atheist’ that I’ll never blog-post, nor will I consider seeing it published anywhere else before AA has squeezed it for all it’s worth.

(Just don’t tell them the article isn’t about atheism or religion – I kind of snuck it past them. Sshhh!)

~ Bruce

Update (3/4/2010): I’m changing my mind about Dan Barker a bit. While a bit corny for my own tastes, having seen his debate with George Pell has left me considerably more impressed than before. And I still don’t find Catherine Deveny particularly insightful or witty, but reading some of what she did behind the scenes for the convention has impressed me as well.

Provocateur #1

Provocateur #2

I suspect Mr Hitchens will be turning down that sandwich. *Shudder*

~ Bruce

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?

Not the least of these decisions has been the issue of applying for a grant.

I’ve decided not to apply. I like the freedom this allows. For example…

The book isn’t a work of theology, but one of cultural criticism. Theology books aren’t eligible for the grant, and if the book was misconstrued as theology, which I think it could, I’d have problems if working under such an arrangement. The grant could be spiked, or my creative direction could be compromised.

And what if I changed my mind and side-stepped for a chapter, or a section, to criticise a piece of theology?

I don’t want that hanging over my head. I don’t want these kinds of constraints.

All the same, I intend to join the ASA, which is something that popped up during the process of looking into grants applications. There’s supposed to be an emerging writer’s initiative of some sort. I’m taking that much away from my investigations.

Decision #1 – “Forget the grant” – made.

The reality that this book, if it’s published, is going to piss people off is sinking in. It should be obvious really.

I’m aiming to challenge commonly held stereotypes, which some people seem to have a lot of emotional investment in. People will bristle.

Further to this, there is an idea that I will be pushing in the book – that atheists are just as entitled to have their fallibility and idiosyncrasies realised as anyone else. This raises an avenue for criticism.

Atheists calling theists “stupid” – it happens. There are instances where this is defensible, just as there are situations when calling an atheist “stupid” are defensible, but in general it’s not a good thing.

The question relevant to my point though, is do atheists actually have a propensity for this kind of behaviour, more so than theists? If not, it’s just a sub-set of a more general problem and there’s no good reason for singling atheists out. If not, “Or when the ‘nones’ – those who are anti-theist – [say] ‘You’re stupid‘”, is just an example of a stereotype. I’ll have to email Prof. Bouma to see what research he’s used to demonstrate (not speculate) that atheists actually excel in this behaviour.

On a more inter-personal level, confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance make things difficult when discussing these matters – especially with those that have a self-image of tolerance, but an easily demonstrable behaviour of prejudicial reasoning and atheophobia. The mental gymnastics and defensiveness are really difficult to put up with. Everything you say is parsed so as to be as possibly offensive as it could ever be, and often beyond.

If you make someone feel stupid, they’ll look for some way of accusing you for abusing them as stupid – my most favourite being the pretence that calling one of their ideas ludicrous or silly, necessarily infers that you’re calling them ludicrous or silly. Which is a stupid idea because smart people can believe stupid things.

It’s not that they’re necessarily nurturing their atheophobia (although that’s a possibility). It’s that they’re nurturing a self-image of being a tolerant person and being forced to realise their own animus towards godless people would shatter that self-image in a none to flattering manner. Hence criticisms made in good faith by atheists, of ideas put into the public square, become contorted into visions of hateful vilification by the overly defensive theist, and their assorted atheist and agnostic enablers. Whether or not these criticisms are correct is beside the point – criticisms made in good faith, but ultimately wrong, still don’t constitute vilification.

Entertaining this brutal dishonesty by being extra-nice is too great an imposture, even if this dishonesty is all too human. An obligation to entertain this necessarily presupposes the notion that atheists have a lesser status in society – having to do more to achieve the same level of participation in the public realm. I have no intention of entertaining the notion of second class citizenry.

Furthermore, this state of affairs robs the atheist of more general equality in communication.

I call my friends’ ideas stupid with great regularity. I call my friends stupid; “you silly plonka”; “you great galoot”; “MORON!”. It’s all done with a smile and a wink of course, and it takes someone somehow divorced from empathy not to realise this.

I could call Neil a “Godbotherer” and I rather doubt that he’d take offence – he’d know the spirit in which the comment was made. My closer friends are the same and the nature of these exchanges is mutual. It’s not abuse. Why shouldn’t one aspire for public discussion to be so candid and friendly?

This is relevant because I intend to write the book in a candid, familiarly tone so as to get closer to the reader. I’m not trying to establish a professional rapport with them – I don’t need that kind of clinical detachment.

Not that I’m going to call the reader a “galoot” or “MORON!”, if this thing does get published, then I’m resigned to the expectation that my idiosyncrasies are going to be taken the wrong way by people with an interest in doing so. But I’m not going to neuter myself because that’d undermine an important part of the message – atheists are just as entitled to have their fallibility and idiosyncrasies realised as anyone else.

It’s often pushed as a matter of practical politics amongst skeptics that you have to be extra nice when being contentious. This may be true with homeopathy, moon landing hoaxes and creationism, but when the matter being debated involves the equality of acceptable communication, I see the maintenance of such an inequality as counter-productive.

I’m not naive to realpolitik, I’m just not going to do it.

A community’s unwillingness to see atheist candour in the same familiarly manner as it would the candour of believers, is to deny atheists the same opportunity for familiarly relationships in the community. It’s prejudicial, based on a double standard and it’s inherently discriminatory. I’m not going to entertain it. I’m not going to wait for a climate of equality to be wilful, I’m going to be wilful for a climate of equality.

Further to this, I think readers that don’t need to be mollycoddled could rightly be offended if I served my arguments like a spoonfuls of baby food. “Look! Here comes the criticism plane! Open up! Vroooom!” That’s tantamount to calling the reader stupid!

Decision #2 – “No wrapping the reader in cotton wool” – made.

While considering whether to go ahead with a grant application, I was operating in accordance with the guideline that work on a project should not begin until a grant has been approved. All the same I wrote two test chapters for the book based on a tentative structure. While some of the content of these chapters are still usable, I’ve decided that the original direction was too technical.

Yes, I will still have technical content and technical terms, and statistics and whatnot. But the book is ultimately a polemic for a recognition of the way atheists are misrepresented, how this is taken for granted, and for this to change. It’s an appeal, not a technical manual and as such the form needs to be changed.

I’ll be using more rhetoric. I’ll use pop-culture references. I’ll be more personal. And with a mind not to violate the purpose of the book, I’ll try to have a bit of fun. It’s a bit of a  sombre topic, so some light-hearted literary therapy is well advised.

And I’m happy with this new direction.

Decision #3 – “More prose, less technical” – made.

The understanding that this book project should commence until the grant has been approved was taken on board in light of a certain fact – that approvals wouldn’t be announced until well into the latter half of the year. Now that I’m not going to apply, the waiting time has hit zero. I’m officially starting on writing the book now – and yes writing; there’ll be more research to be done, that’s for sure, but a lot of it I’ve already got done – thanks to writing this blog for a few years. (There’s more data here at the back-end than I’ve referenced in the past few years).

Decision #4 – “Get started” – made.

Which leaves the issue of the fate of this blog. I had tentatively made plans for this blog to this year write a long series of blog posts based on an informal course of suggested readings.

That plan looks to be out the window.

I’d aimed to have had that finished by the time that grant approvals were announced. I can’t do that and write a book at the same time.

I still intend to blog away. However blogging would not only be steered away from the previous plan, but would also undoubtedly shift towards content more closely related to the book – both topically and on the matter of writing in general.

What’s more, I’ve already got a private, locked blog that I was going to launch after I’d put this one on mothballs towards the end of this year. Should I speed up the process and transition to the newer blog sooner?

The newer blog is to have an increased emphasis on my writing aspirations and projects-in-the-pipeline; a kind of open writer’s journal with a healthy smattering of topical posts. Aspiring writer blogs do have a hint of desperation about them, but that could actually be part of the charm, I think. With my first few tentative steps into the broad community of writers, I’ve seen how they huddle together in solidarity. The struggles, the open, candid expression of hopes and anxieties is attractive and interesting in a very human kind of way.

The cliché of the struggling writer, when realised via blogging may be a disgrace, but it’s a glorious disgrace.

The question is how soon I want to foul myself in public. (Some would say I’ve done that already).

Decision #5 – “Move on to the next blog” – undecided.

~ Bruce

(Image Source: Chris Wightman)

“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.

1. Does the person you are about to ask about evolution have better things to do with their time than listen to your questions?

Seriously. If you’re reading this, you’ve probably met them over the net. Which means that you don’t really know how busy their offline lives are.

The same goes for other social settings. Are they present to discuss evolution versus creationism, or is it someone’s birthday? Is it a family get-together.

Unless they’ve signed on to some forum to address creationism, you should consider that it’s probably an imposture for them to have your ideas foist upon them.

2. Do you think you are creeping them out?

Biologists like Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers get death threats in the mail from creationists. Creationists once lied in order to get access to Richard Dawkins’ home. Not his work – his home.

The converse isn’t true. You don’t see biologists sending death threats and sneaking into creationist’s homes under false pretences. Creationists have therefore earned a reputation as being a bit creepy.

You may not be approaching Dawkins or Myers, but the person you have decided to have a chat with could very well find your creationism creepy. Watch your behaviour.

3. Do you expect your ideas to be given “equal time” and if so, have you done as much work with evolution?

Seriously. If you expect your critique of evolution to be given equal time, make sure that you’ve put in as much work on the topic as the person you’ve approached. And I mean on the topic. Exclusively reading the likes of Ken Ham does not qualify. I mean text-book biology.

Rote recitation of other people’s critiques of evolution is neither a familiarity with, nor an understanding of, evolution.

There is only one exception to this rule.

4. Do you really have evidence that really is mutually exclusive with evolution?

One needn’t understand the fine details of a theory in order to reject the lot. I don’t need to know what a certain alignment of Venus spells for my neighbour’s dog in order to reject astrology, and I’m not going to read as much astrology as an astrologer before I reject it.

What evidence do you have that is mutually exclusive with evolution? Do you actually have a knock-out punch, or are you just flailing around trying to score a random, lucky hit for The Lord?

Please note. This is not the same as an absence of evidence where it isn’t clear how something could have evolved.

It is unclear how remains could retain soft tissue for millions of years. This would have implications for evolution if it turned out that dinosaurs were more recent, but there is no positive evidence in this find that says such a thing. It just raises ambiguity for geology at this point. It’s a gap in knowledge. The only controversy this generates at this point is in relation to the understanding of how some fossils form.

The fact that creationists weren’t able to gain access to the tissue in question, which they whined about for a while, also is not evidence. No access to materials = no ability for direct analysis = limited conclusions.

This is negative evidence – a gap in knowledge. We’re talking evidence. Positive evidence.

Like a rabbit fossil in Devonian rock. Or human footprints fossilised in Jurassic deposits. And have you checked to make sure this evidence is credible?

5. Have you critically analysed your own ideas?

This is your job. Not somebody else’s. If the person you are approaching is able to find basic errors that you could have found yourself, if only you’d applied yourself, then they aren’t going to be happy. Unless they want to laugh at you of course. They may got pleasure out of that.

All the same, presenting your ideas (or ideas you are copying from some pamphlet that you trust implicitly) without vetting them first is lazy. It’s rude. It’s a waste of other people’s time and an abuse of their good faith in entertaining you in the first place.

Furthermore, have you asked yourself questions like “with all the money they attract, why don’t the creationist think tank do field research?”, don’t bother trying to proselytize to other people. If you are going to be so careless, then at least don’t be careless at other people’s expense.

6. Is the “evolutionist” likely to have heard it before?

A lot of what passes for creationist thought isn’t new. After being exposed to this stuff in the 1990s, and arguing against it on the Internet ever since, I’ve long since stopped seeing genuinely new material. Just a lot of mutton dressed up as lamb.

If the “evolutionist” is likely to have heard it before, they aren’t going to be amused by hearing it again. Just because I haven’t written about every creationist argument I’ve seen, doesn’t mean that I haven’t seen a lot – it just means that I’m sick of rubbish about polonium halos and divinely rigged decay rates, misinterpretation of carbon-14 contamination, and misinformation about “polystrate” trees.

I’m sick of reading creationists making arguments based on misunderstandings about allopatric speciation, when they claim that according to evolution, suddenly one species gives birth to a member of another! Gah! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

If the “evolutionist” isn’t likely to have heard it before, and you know other “evolutionists” have and have had reason to reject it, then you’re just being misleading.

7. Are you preparing to move the goal posts?

Irreducible complexity – the idea that the component parts of a functional protein can not evolve, because incomplete, a species can gain no evolutionary benefit from the incomplete version.

This is “negative evidence” again, not actual evidence, but we’ll put that problem to one side for a moment. We’ll also put aside the fact that the component parts of any given feature may in turn have a function we aren’t aware of (something that was found out in relation to one of Behe’s favourite examples - the bacterial flagellum).

The human nervous system is typically the system deigned too complex – for obvious ideological reasons (“God gave us consciousness!”). If component parts of the human nervous system were found in another species, would you abandon your position? It is alleged by ID proponents that these features are irreducibly complex; such a discovery (a reduction of the irreducibly complex) should then be impossible.

Consider the sea sponge. The most primitive of animals, having neither organs nor a central nervous system.

If genetically speaking, the sea sponge had anything resembling these more modern features, they’d have to be in some reduced form. Sadly for the ID camp, DNA coding for much of the component features of the nervous system – specifically the genes encoding for much of the proteins used in synapses. Notably, the sea sponge has a feature that incorporates these proteins and it’s only a matter of time before this structure is given a thorough investigation.

Now, if you are willing to hold that the proteins in the synapses that have component ancestors, you can’t also hold that the feature as it is in the synapse of a modern animal is irreducibly complex. The same is true of the bacterial flagellum – it’s component parts are known to exist and to have functions of their own.

“But we don’t know about the evolutionary origins of proteins! Therefore they’re irreducibly complex!” Yeah, until we find out about them as well…

Examples were picked. Examples were debunked. The original position held that irreducible complexity was pervasive.

To switch to other examples, or to revise the scope of ID to try to keep it in the game, is to change the terms of the debate. It’s to move the goal posts during game play. It’s flatly dishonest.

Now you can’t expect people to spend their time on your queries if you’re not being honest, can you? So don’t be.

8. Have you made a serious effort to develop your primary reasoning skills?

For a start, I’ve never met a creationist that didn’t either have a failure of primary reasoning when it came to evolution, or a general, all-pervading lack of primary reasoning skills.

But even if this is meaningless, even if creationists aren’t worse off than the general population – the development of primary reasoning skills in primary and high school isn’t something that’s necessarily sufficient to make you a critical thinker (the reason for Matthew Lipman’s efforts).

I’ve been told that my primary reasoning skills are pretty good. At the time, I found the logic component of my discrete mathematics course to be easy – and I seemed to be naturally a lot better at it than the others in my lecture, and the lecturer himself (I was however, crap at calculus). That being said, I made, and I’ve continued to make serious efforts to develop my primary reasoning skills since back in the day. And I look back on my prior reasoning and I find it wanting – at some points even embarrassing.

The lesson in this is that no matter if you have a recognised talent, or a disadvantage, there is always room for improvement. There will be even more room for improvement if you don’t make an effort!

So have you made a serious effort to develop your primary reasoning skills?

I’d suggest that if you haven’t, you aren’t in a fit state to be trying to debate anyone, much less to lead them to truth. If your arguments are getting shot down time and time again for logical fallacies, odds on you need to work on your primary reasoning skills.

No amount of “I’m not as smart or educated as you, but…” is going to make foisting the product of poor reasoning onto anyone truthful, nor will it make you meek. There’s nothing meek about preaching to people who have put more effort into their thinking than you.

9. Are you trying to reconcile the evidence with your idea of God?

If you are trying to make the facts reconcile with some pre-conceived notion, you’ve already lost. And I don’t mean the debate – I mean you’re at a loss for believing what you believe. If your notion of a God was such a well thought out concept, it wouldn’t need to be reconciled. The idea’s obviously a poor one if you need to undertake mental gymnastics.

Can you really expect a conversation with someone if you bring this rubbish to the table? A rabbit in the Devonian would compel any “evolutionist” to at least seriously doubt evolution. If you aren’t prepared to seriously doubt your notion of God in light of evidence, then that’s a bit one-sided isn’t it?

People will just call you dogmatic, and probably think you’re a bit silly. And nobody wants to debate with that.

10. Are you writing one of those “10 questions every evolutionist must answer!” pieces?

If you’ve failed to properly address any of the above, odds on you aren’t going to be taken seriously. If you have failed to properly address any of the above, you shouldn’t be taken seriously.

If you’ve failed the above you’ve demonstrated an inability to engage and most probably, a lack of good faith towards your prospective interlocutors.

Seriously, consider getting your act together before you publish any more garbage, thanks.

~ Bruce

Photo source: User:Jynus, Wikimedia Commons.

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.

You know the argument that goes on between parents – especially separated parents – “why do I have to be the bad one?”

That’s pretty much my take on the situation.

Like a lot of people from a similar background, I’ve got a bit more than your average dark streak running through me. But I’m dealing with it and most of it is behind me. Well behind me. Over and out.

This darkness used to hang over my writing like a shroud, provoking various responses.

Throughout the nineties, and into the first couple of years of the “noughties”, my writing variously impressed, or upset people. My efforts were variously called “interesting”, “corrupting” and “disturbing”.

That’s with an exception of course. A glaring exception. The same dark streak that was tainting all of this was a bit destructive to my writing, by way of stress and anxiety. My capacity to write was largely compromised – variously being called “crap”, “garbage” and “unreadable”.

The quality of my prose suffered immensely, and then there was the poor editing. Oh boy! My writing took a nose-dive, headlong and full speed into the concrete. Splat!

At the lowest ebb, my writing read like an angry, disjointed flame-mail. Intentional hyperbole just came across as crazy speak. Black humor just came across as unnerving. Ribald just came across as lecherous.

A criminologists’ wet dream, or nightmare (or both – why do psychologists study psychology, again?) Albeit, I don’t have a criminal record. Not even a fine. And even at my worst I’ve always cared a lot about people’s well-being. Even if I’ve faltered at conveying my intentions.

At my darkest, I was never a risk to anyone who wasn’t a much bigger risk to everyone else around us. And I’ve been around some pretty high-risk individuals, let me tell you.

Through my broken writing I frightened a few of the people around me. And I scared more of them and frightened them worse than I was aware of at the time. I was even called “intimidating”, which was never the intention.

1998-2001 was the worst of it by far. I take a torch to everything I wrote in the period – emails, letters, essays; you name it, it was shit. The language centre of my brain fell out and died in a ditch. You should see the correspondence involving conflict resolution with neighbours. I’m glad you can’t.

And oh how I’ll never write bloody poetry again! (Truth be told, I should have learned this in 1992 when I was first complimented as being “corrupting”).

While this dark streak could confer a certain character to my writing, in large doses it was an unmitigated disaster. Like an acid that was made too strong, it just corroded through everything, ruining prose, deforming turn-of-phrase, and allowing the gaps to be filled with all manner of wrong impressions.

I had so much of this darkness running through my mind in the nineties that it was a forgone conclusion. My writing was a loss.

It took a lot of effort to get over it all. And a lot of effort not to fall back into it when my Father passed away in 2003. But at last it’s all over.

So you can probably appreciate that I don’t want to go through it again!

My writing has improved and is still improving. My state of mind is more enjoyable than it has been in a very, very long time. I’ve found an unprecedented inner calm.

All the same, and this is the problem, it seems sometimes that my writing has been permanently tainted. Even when not writing angry, upon later reflection my prose can come across as such. Even with clear recall of the mood I was in when I wrote it. With my writing finally coming back together again, it’s still haunted by my acerbic shadow.

Which brings me back to the point of being invited to consider a solution.

I posed my situation – the angry writing from a place of deep calm – to a nice lady from Arts SA.

First she suggested that this anger came from a deep, dark place that I wasn’t aware of.

I don’t think this is even remotely tenable because I’ve become quite well acquainted with that side of my mind, thank you very much! I’d know it if it was in the game again. My “problem” is more of an after-effect; a ghost.

I explained this briefly, to which she casually responded “use it”.

Gah! Does she really know what she’s asking of me? Why do I have to be the bad one?

Of course, I don’t always write angry from a place of calm, and when writing analytic prose, I make efforts to avoid, or at least moderate it. It can be quite unhelpful, this phantom mean streak. Even when the people who’s cherished ideas you are critiquing, don’t take things the wrong way.

“So what if people don’t get you! Who cares if they take it the wrong way!”

It matters if you’re writing analytic prose! Coming across the wrong way when writing critique, while sometimes the result of willing misunderstanding on the part of the reader, is about as bad as not having your side of a debate understood by the voting party. It’s not the same as fiction being interpreted a thousand and one different ways; except for when deliberately giving your readers a bit of interpretive exercise, you need clarity and precision; no deliberate overstatement; no sarcasm; no in-jokes or overly arcane subtext that could easily be seen as something bad when taken out of context.

And almost certainly no gory metaphors or puns!

But moreover, I’ve found calm through a great deal of difficulty and it’s this calm that’s enabled me to write again. I’m concerned that allowing the dark streak to run rampant with my prose will erode it away again. And perhaps rob me of my newfound calm.

At least I’d like the chance to write in this climate for a bit longer before risking it. Maybe gaining a bit of control over the dark side of my use of language before having to consider using it on a more regular basis.

I’d like to be the good one for once. Not the scary one. Not the evil-disturbing-angry-dangerous one.

I may have come across as a bit of an angry guy, even a crazy guy, but I’m still a good guy underneath all of it. And most everyone else amongst writers seems to get to be a “good one” most of the time anyway – both in terms of that afforded by a safe and sheltered life that I never had, and just in the way their language comes across.

Why do I have to be the bad one? Why can’t I be the good one for once?

~ Bruce

Even if I do post a post before then.

~ Bruce

I look forward to all the books written by all those in attendance. Writers’. Week.

Pigs at a bloody trough.

Now that I’ve got that out of the system…

In other news, while applying for a literature grant in May isn’t off the cards, I’m thinking that the hoops an emerging writer has to go through to apply are more important than the actual grant. I’m going to dive through those hoops even if I don’t apply. Or at least, if I apply and don’t get approved, or I am approved and I don’t accept, the hoops (such as joining the Australian Society of Authors) will still be a wanted part of the process.

This grant business, if accepted, would grant me a bit of independence from the usual things I’m dependent on, but at the same time robbing me of institutional independence – from the Australia Council for The Arts in particular.

I’m getting this sinking feeling that most of the people applying for literature grants aren’t starving artists. Or at least, aren’t at any serious risk of poverty – either having safe middle class parents to fall back on if they are young, or a house bought and paid for if they are older.

There’s obviously time for me to mull this over, but if the grants process advantages those already in a position of relative privilege, I’m not sure I’d want to have anything to do with the Australia Council. In any capacity.

In fact the idea of established-versus-emerging writer as part of the grants process is a bit telling, especially when projected financial income generated by a project is also a criteria*. Established writers who can’t honestly say they will sell well are handicapped in obtaining grants. Which leaves established writers who can make sales versus emerging writers.

Why are established writers who are able to sell books, applying for a grant in the first place? At least with an emerging writer who expects acceptable book sales (or the equivalent as per the application criteria), aren’t necessarily advantaged.

It’s not relevant to the current project, but privilege-v-disadvantage is a theme I’d likely want to touch on in future, so I find the prospect of associating with such a process by having the Australian Council for The Arts logo on the book (as per conditions) to be a bit prejudicial.

I’m not sure I’d want to compromise my values like this in order to detach myself from the usual low-income, working class dependencies.

Still, I haven’t finished looking into things. My concerns may turn out to be unwarranted. Then there’d just be the more generic concerns of acceptance or rejection of my grant application.

~ Bruce

* Yes, yes, revenue generation in terms of book sales does not equal artistic or intellectual merit. It’s the council’s criteria.

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

In general, I find the refutation of the occasional religious idea to be more rewarding than proofs against whole swathes of religions assumptions. Particularly as such refutations may have practical merit when they defend worthwhile ideas against bad ones – for example, defending medicine against faith healing. Very. Practical!

Furthermore, in addition to these practical up-shots, you don’t actually have to go spending as much energy, leaving more over FOR YOU TO HAVE A LIFE!

And at the very least, if you are dealing with religious people, a refutation is something you are more likely to have a reasonable discussion about. The religious having their own refutations of particular religious ideas.

As long as I’m not told that I need to be invited to offer a refutation of a religious idea aired in public, and as long as people stop calling refutations I may voice, attempted proofs against God, then I think I’ll be happy. Probably.

~ Bruce

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.

Arrgghhh…

Oddly enough (or not) I may be involved in the kicking of some moderate (or faux-moderate) Christian arse before this is over. Someone’s done gone done something wrong, with pious motivations. Wrong enough that I can’t exclude the possibility that the Police will get involved – which as a witness, and relative of the offending party, will be really inconvenient for me.

Not an Army of God kind of illegality – we aren’t talking jail terms – but the kind of social conduct that I can’t see a Christian outside of the Army of God being willing to defend. I can’t think of any fundamentalists in my own social network that would even be willing to try to defend it in some kind of thought experiment, much less the real thing and much less by more liberal Christians.

There may be clergy involved behind said motivations. I hope not. I hope it’s all just a misunderstanding, because it all has the potential to create a lot of bad blood.

There has been a lot of good faith invested in religious people, by a number of interested atheists, thus far in the enterprise in question. And a certain amount has been received in return (if seemingly smaller). I’m not looking forward to whatever conflict this is all leading to, no matter how small the role of religion may ultimately turn out to be.

This isn’t a “merely” academic matter – there are real people with real consequences. It’s not a thought experiment.

At any rate, the boot will be landing on some Christian posterior in the near future, even if it’s not me delivering the kick. I just don’t know who exactly, or what theology precisely, lead to this mess I’ve got involved in, and to what extent precisely other factors were influential – the primacy of religious motivation will be hard to deny, and a significant-but-not-primary role in motivation much more so.

I’d like Jesus to start sending me a thank you basket (no fish – vegetarian) for each time I help to clean up this kind of mess. It’s not the first time. He’d better if he expects me to save his arse again.

~ Bruce

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)

Currently in my formspring inbox (along with two other questions I’ll answer in due course)…

“Kant claims that a priori synthetic judgments are necessary for the possibility of experience. What does he mean by this?”

Here we go!

Some terms and some history

Prior to Kant’s arrival on the Enlightenment scene, judgements were divided into two categories – a priori and a posteriori. A priori judgements were made via pure reason (it is an a priori truth that A=A), whereas a posteriori judgements are derived from experience, therefore being unreliable in their specific application (it is an a posteriori truth that some swans are white – but some aren’t, as you can see in my title bar above).

Put as an oversimplification the Enlightenment rationalists were all about a priori judgements and the Enlightenment empiricists were all about a posteriori. (Which is why I get a bit miffed when people who are all about the empirical evidence call themselves “rationalists” – but that’s another story*). Suffice to say, this left the empiricists with all the practical application (i.e. evidence based), while the rationalists got all the reliability (i.e. A will never, can never equal not-A – it will always equal A).

In an attempt to resolve this schism, Immanuel Kant went further, identifying another similar distinction overlaid upon the old one; the analytic/synthetic distinction.

Analytic judgements are those where the predicates are entirely contained in the subject of the judgement, e.g. all killers have taken a life, all squares have four sides*.

Synthetic judgements are those where the predicates are distinct from the subject of the judgement, being linked through relation to another subject – e.g. the Earth orbits the sun, that piece of halibut looks good enough for Jehovah.

When overlaid, you end up with four categories of judgements.

• Analytic a priori – uncontroversial truths by definition – e.g. a triangle has three sides.
• Analytic a posteriori – a meaningless category because the predicates, being already contained in the subject, do not require empirical verification. E.g. to point at a real material triangle and claim “that triangle has three sides” is both rationally and empirically true – it necessarily has three sides by definition, and empirically it appears to have three sides. The rational truth is necessarily true, but the empirical truth, being empirical knowledge, is  never utterly reliable and in this (and every other analytic a posteriori) case, redundant.
• Synthetic a priori (the point of this post) – judgements that are necessarily (a priori) true that have predicates derived through relations between subjects. I’ll get back to this.
• Synthetic a posteriori – everyday, empirical facts e.g. homoeopathy is just a placebo, thermonuclear devices work through a combination of fusion and fission, and Coldplay are boring.

Ignore for the purposes of this post, that my tutor at Uni who got me into Kant, had an example of a judgement that was both analytic and synthetic.

Why are synthetic a priori truths are necessary for the possibility of experience?

Here are some (modern) examples of what Kant would probably have considered synthetic a priori judgements.

• Non-Euclidean geometry.
• The evolutionary algorithm (if variant, if hereditary, if selected then evolution must occur).
• Graph theory.

None of the predicates within either of these reside just within the subject (e.g. hereditary status requires two subjects at least – a parent and a child), but all by definition are true. Their synthetic nature providing the practical justification previously only the province of empirical a posteriori judgements, while retaining the logical necessity afforded by their a priori status – a reliability previously only the province of Enlightenment rationalism.

All three of these synthetic a priori truths form the practical, logically consistent underpinnings of (scientific) experience; general relativity has non-Euclidean geometry as a logical underpinning; evolutionary biology has the evolutionary algorithm as a logical underpinning; a nice swath of computer science has graph theory as a logical underpinning.

Analytic a priori truths are too divorced from the practical, material reality to support any of these ventures. Synthetic a posteriori truths are the ventures themselves, not their logical underpinnings, and are insufficient in their logical necessity to reliably imply universality.

Analytic a posteriori judgements are meaningless, which leaves (in Kant’s scheme) synthetic a priori judgements – which as the examples demonstrate, do the job of logically underpinning experience just nicely (practical and by definition logically necessary) .

I hope that answers the question adequately. If all else fails, remember the four categories and the three that aren’t up to the task!

~ Bruce

UPDATE: Oh, and prior to Kant, where was also the fact-value distinction, which is outside the scope of the post – but worth knowing about.

* “God has existence” is not an example of this, because not only isn’t existence a predicate contained in the subject, it’s not a predicate at all. This is not a linguistic argument, it’s epistemological! Arrgh! (Pet peeve – sorry).

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

I’ve got an email sitting in my in-box in response to my last post, and as it was so abrupt as to be largely devoid of tone (and from someone I don’t know), I can’t tell what spirit it’s written in. Hence, unless I’m given reason to think otherwise, I’ll assume it isn’t hate mail and therefore won’t publish the author’s name.

At any rate, their statement was in response to this line in my last post:

“I’m willing to help subvert the term until it’s rendered as meaningless and non-controversial as “afairyist”, or until I’m dead.”

(Me, Then.)

To which they asked “certain?” – and that’s all.

Before I get to the task of answering this question, I’m going to ramble on a bit about a discussion last night on Twitter. Like it, lump it or leave – you’re in charge of what you read.

Accusations of certitude

I suspect, but don’t know, that whoever our friend is, he’s probably been following last night’s Twitter conversation on the topic of atheists and certainty – where Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins were nominated as examples of atheists exhibiting certitude. 140 chars isn’t much, and people were a bit tired so I didn’t labour the point that Hitchens is on record as stating that Victor Stenger is too confident in God’s non-existence (and even then I wouldn’t call Stenger certain*), and Hitchens has explicitly stated many times (and in The God Delusion) that his disbelief isn’t certain, what it would take for him to change his mind, and that certainty isn’t a good thing for scientists.

Certitude is an absolute. And while it isn’t easy to detect – because let’s face it, people can hide their certitude and passing yourself off as stubborn isn’t the best debating tactic – when certitude rears its head it’s really bloody obvious. The willingness to disregard evidence because it contradicts a presupposed, mystically obtained belief, is certitude. Claiming a 100% confidence interval with no room for human error, ever, is certitude.

Certitude isn’t a personality trait or a rhetorical disposition. It’s an epistemological facet. Being overbearing, loud mouthed and obnoxious, doesn’t make you certain. Being a bit of a curmudgeon doesn’t signify absolute confidence.

And that’s another thing – confidence isn’t certitude either unless it’s absolute. A hypothesis confirmed or denied at a 99% confidence level is pretty damn confident, but it isn’t certitude because by necessary implication, there is a small probability that the results are wrong.

So when someone is brash, pig-headed and confident, or you otherwise take exception to their personality, that’s no reason to accuse them of certainty. That’s not what certitude is.

If you think they are over confident, say so and then provide some evidence to back up your claim (or expect to be dismissed). If you find their personality obnoxious, which is a subjective thing, say so and give some examples (or expect to be dismissed). Even if you do present evidence and examples, expect them to be scrutinised. Especially when talking to someone who knows their shit!

The other thing that strikes me – relating specifically to the matter of the downgrading of evidence in lieu of mythology – is that in seeing these myths prosecuted in the past few weeks, I’ve repeatedly encountered the “accusation first – I’ll send you a link later”, phenomena. I know people are busy, and can be tired, and they can forget and so on and so forth. I’m not making an accusation here, much less about specific instances – it’s just that it’s happened a lot of late, which as a trend is a bit worrying.

Put more simply – I’ve been enquiring into people’s perceptions of atheists – not to recount in the book I’ve got planned**, but instead to test my own perceptions before going ahead with the project – and this is the list of the evidence and examples I’ve been given in the past few weeks.

• …

That’s. It.

In all instances, I had counter-evidence at the ready (I’ve got quite a long list of sources available at my desk here), but didn’t get to deploy them as discussion was in most cases side-tracked or shut-down for various reasons of convenience (I’m sure most were genuine, but I can’t honestly assert that all were – and I don’t know which were or weren’t). Whatever spirit these discussions were undertaken in, I don’t think anyone could rightly complain if I dismiss these assertions on the grounds of a lack of rigor.

It is an added irony, that the certitude trope is one that climate change denialists level against climate science – their “evidence” ranging from non-existent to ephemeral tropes about “The Green Religion”; their consideration of counter-evidence, such as statements of (non-100%) confidence by the IPCC, not undertaken. But none of the people levelling the certitude trope against atheists were climate change denialists as far as I could tell (and I did check and to some extent found the contrary – that they respected climate science).

None in as far as I have reason to suspect, would be duped by the allegation that the  IPCC operates in certitude – which is smart and correct – but it renders their use of the trope elsewhere a double-standard. If, considering the evidence, these people wouldn’t be likely to call the IPCC “certain” – then why not consider the evidence that Hitchens and Dawkins aren’t certain and indeed, warn against certainty? (Or am I wrong in my estimation? Would these people be duped by the bare assertion that the IPCC is certain about matters of climate change? Would they fall for this denialist trope?)

Further to this, none of them are fans of Andrew Bolt – who could in as far as accusations and evidence are concerned, tell you a thing or two about the need for due care for the truth (i.e. rigor when making accusations). I’m quite confident about them not being impressed by Bolt’s defamation of Popovic, and a recognising that published allegations require evidence to accompany them. Even if you aren’t going to be sued, it’s the right thing to do.

I think in future I may add “#TweetLikeAndrewBolt” to re-tweets of these sort tweets in future***. If things don’t change.

Perceptions of personalities are readily formed by our own psychologies and I think we would all do well to realise that. Not only welcoming challenges to these perceptions from others, but actively challenging our own perceptions through the seeking and consideration of non-confirmatory evidence. Call it a safe-guard against prejudice. Or a bulwark against certainty about other people’s certainty.

Importantly I consider all of these people to be in general, reasonable people. But largely reasonable people can believe unreasonable things. Perhaps you thought I was talking about fundamentalists? I wasn’t.

Back to the quote

Was I exhibiting certainty in my statement “I’m willing to help subvert the term until it’s rendered as meaningless and non-controversial as “afairyist”, or until I’m dead.”?

It’s a comment about my current emotional position – “I’m willing”. It doesn’t prejudice a change of opinion down the road by saying something like “I’ll never be unwilling…”

I find it unlikely that I’ll be unwilling to change my stance on this matter until the stated conditions are met – that theists cut back their use of the term “atheist” as an invective, at least to roughly the same level as non-theists. (Some non-theists use “atheist” as a pejorative, it should be noted.)

Maybe my conditions will change over time – and although I can’t foresee myself becoming a theist, I suspect that I’d still support the Out Campaign with the “Scarlet A” even if I did “join the other side”.

This is confidence. This isn’t certitude.

I do wish an appreciation of this distinction were more widespread.

~ Bruce

* In The New Atheism, Stenger concedes that some God hypothesis are outside the realms of scientific analysis. Not that he’s stating that there are better ways to “know God”, just that there are things currently, and by definition perpetually, outside human reliable analysis - this is hardly a statement of certitude about God!

** If I were using any of these examples as content in a book, I’d have made a disclosure and presented a release form up-front. Not that I have to.

*** If you don’t find this even vaguely amusing, then I think you’re being too serious. Chill out. Take the comment in the spirit that it’s given. I’m kidding. I think. I’m not certain. Maybe I’m not. Kidding.

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.

Two particularly unpleasant little gems; my very own copies for convenience.

The two of them together should provide quite a few useful examples of misrepresentation of atheists.

~ Bruce

If there’s one particular argument over “who’s better and why” that I find disturbing, it’s the “theists do more/atheists do less to help the disadvantaged” trope. The PR associated with the “debate” over the issue has a way of making the vulnerable and disadvantaged, the very people who’s needs are supposed to be the purpose of the whole welfare venture, instrumental to other people’s self-image. Usually people who have more money than them.

Really, it seems quite selfish to me, this “we are kinder/just as kind”, kind of crap. You have these people who have a home, money and security, sponging off of the destitute for brownie points.

I’ve seen it in religious apologetics with the use of bad statistics, usually containing category errors which make unverifiable assumptions about those donating to charity. There are many avenues one can go by to help those in need, and most of them don’t discriminate against help on the basis of the life stance of the donor – hence they don’t exactly have a running census. You can’t just go and assume that all of World Vision’s work is the work of the religious – they seek donations from theist and atheist alike.

While I’m of the understanding that a number of church-based welfare agencies are pointedly non-proselytic (for example, it’s a violation of Centrecare’s code of ethics and social justice policy*), the same isn’t true of a number of religious aid initiatives. Let’s not mince words. Proselytism to the disadvantaged and vulnerable is predatory. It’s taking advantage of a lack of social justice to engage in coercion. Furthermore, it can get in the way of genuine relief efforts.

There are always resource bottlenecks in crisis situations. Even when infrastructure isn’t compromised, resources are finite and geared more closely to the supply and demand situation under normal circumstances. A large stochastic event drastically alters supply and demand in a way production isn’t geared to cope with. Take any of the serious Australian bushfires we’ve had in the past few years – we’re well equipped but in each relief effort you’ll hear words to the effect of “please no more clothes, just send food or donate directly to this fund”.

Storage space and transport are finite. Sending and storing things that aren’t needed doesn’t just not help – it can get in the way of relief efforts. A plane or truck carrying something that isn’t going to save a life could otherwise be used to transport something that could. In essence this is what John Stuart Mill called (and what economists call) opportunity cost.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to tell that Haiti’s infrastructure was rubbish before the earthquake. It doesn’t take Einstein to tell that it’s even worse afterward. And it shouldn’t be beyond the average person off the street to be able to tell that a solar power bible isn’t going to pull anyone out of the rubble, or administer CPR, or set up a field hospital.

The easy answer to this is “ATHEIST CHARITY!!!” It’s an easy answer and like many easy answers, I don’t like it. For one, I prefer secular charity. There are two big, albeit not-necessary implications calling a charity “atheist” – either one of non-religious proselytism or exploitation for political ends: a response to the calculated stereotype that paints atheists as necessarily selfish (something the current Pope is guilty of spreading around).

It appears to be very easy for atheists to be baited into exploiting the beneficiaries of their charity, if only inadvertently. Take the recent “atheist giveaways“. Well meaning, no doubt. Needed, no doubt. And no signs of proselytism – that’s good.

But… Filming the needy at their most vulnerable – when they are asking for help – to produce a video showing how atheists can be nice, is not okay. It’s exploitative.

Sure, make a video arguing that atheists are nice people. Make a video promoting the cause of welfare. I don’t have a problem with either. There are however, right and wrong ways of going about it.

Helping people isn’t easy work, much less so when done properly. Just because the Vatican (and others) really has it in for atheists these days is no excuse to make great displays of kindness at any cost – including the cost of the dignity of the disadvantaged. This PR problem that has been foist upon us by others is the problem of said others – we shouldn’t be sabotaging our better inclinations just in order to respond.

Further to this. It should become apparent that in as far as the motives for helping people are concerned, I don’t think that the identity of the helper is particularly relevant. When I’ve done charity work, I haven’t, nor will I ever give a rat’s arse about who I do it with. At least in as far as religious affiliation is concerned.

Seriously, if you’re an atheist reading this, ask yourself “would I deny help from a theist in helping my fellow human?” If your answer is yes, then you’ve got problems. Sure, you probably don’t want to proselytise or be a party to proselytism directed at the poor – I can relate. But that doesn’t prevent you from working with religious people.

I know it’s not impossible because I’ve done it myself.

So what kind of “atheist charity” do you have if you have Christians and Muslims and fellow humans from various other religious affiliations at your side? You don’t have one. And if you aren’t church-based, and you don’t proselytise, what you have is a secular charity.

I’ve got a bit of a “faitheist” for a cousin, who likes to point out that there aren’t any atheist charities. Put simply, if you have a non-church-based charity that doesn’t proselytise and doesn’t care one hoot about who helps out, you’ve got as atheist a charity as many an atheist would ever want. Of course, these secular charities don’t stand out, but that’s not the point – they are numerous, but they’re there to help out, not to make a display.

Opportunity cost plays a part in this as well. Why waste energy on replicating welfare infrastructure that is already available to secular ends, even if the infrastructure just happens to church-based? Energy wasted on unnecessary replication of infrastructure is energy not spent on helping people.

That being said, atheists shouldn’t have their efforts frustrated either. There’s a lot of need in the world going unmet. So on the occasions that I’ve been made aware of secular not-for-profit initiatives aimed squarely at where need exists being discriminated against because of their non-religious status, I’m truly appalled. This comes down to opportunity cost as well.

A charity that serves X amount of utility, for Y amount of funding, displacing the utility provided by another contender (Z), where Xis being paid Y amount of funding to generate negative utility. Put more simply, they’re being paid to displace a better welfare agency and thus increase the need for welfare.

This can be put in even more sinister terms. Consider a thought experiment.

$1 million of funding is available to tender poverty relief. Using these funds, Charity A will alleviate $1.2 million of poverty; Charity B will alleviate $1.5 million of poverty. Due to denominational politics, Charity A gets the tender. The sinister aspect in this thought experiment is that the poor are paying $300,000 in opportunity costs so that Charity A can absorb $1 Million of funding into its infrastructure – along with all the political influence that buys – at the meagre cost of $200,000 (from tax-exempt income, of course).

This isn’t nearly as hypothetical as you may think. This, in various forms and with various sums, is essentially a lot of what happened with Job Network contracts under the Howard Government. Although the criteria for discrimination was more (albeit not entirely) secular – church-based institutions, along with more secular Job Network members, would be enticed carrot-and-stick to comply with new Job Network policy, attracting political influence at the price of giving political or religious validation to the Federal Government.

Concerns about what was best for the disadvantaged were pushed down the list of priorities as this religious-political horse trading was executed. Deserving, principled welfare groups (both church-based and secular) were themselves disadvantaged if they didn’t play along**. The needy being the end-recipient of this neglect.

The take-home message in all of this is that welfare agency, and not-for-profit attempts to better humanity’s lot in general, can be undermined when treated as political capital. Secular or not.

I am a big believer in secular welfare, and I think it the best way to bring about social justice – material needs being met with the best (albeit not infallible) guarantee of the preservation of human dignity. Not that I think for a moment that atheists have been selfish in the past, the renewed interest in welfare amongst the out-atheist community is to be welcomed. Just not as a PR exercise (why dignify anti-atheist propaganda with such a response anyway?)

In any undertaking of secular welfare however, we atheists need to keep in mind why we should be (not just why we are) going about it in the first place and let those justifications inform our strategies. We atheists are still quite capable of stuffing this up if we lose our way.

Perhaps instead of getting defensive in response to the fatuous “selfish atheist” charges, we just get on with the job and make explicit our expectations that our theist counterparts do the same. Appealing to them to join with us in opposing the treatment of welfare recipients as political currency.

~ Bruce

* Indeed, the policy goes beyond a “do not”, mandating that Centrecare workers take deliberate preventative steps against imposing their personal beliefs upon clients.

** This is all relative of course – even those that came through the process relatively unscathed weren’t at all happy about the horse trading for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was the effect upon the provision of service.

Okay. I’ve gone and got a formspring.me account, which enables people to ask me question anonymously.

Don’t want to leave a (fake) email address, or an IP on a blog comment? Don’t want anyone to make you feel embarrassed?

Ask here.

I’d prefer to tweet the answers in short form, so I won’t necessarily answer questions that call for an essay. Although I may – if I think the question warrants a post.

Have at it.

~ Bruce

Slight change to the title. Or at least the subtitle.

‘Religious Memes That Orient The Godless’ becomes ‘Religious Memes That Misrepresent The Godless’.

Obviously more easily understandable, but also I think the synthesis of a memetic version of Orientalism, applied to non-religious people as opposed to Middle Easterners, could do without Orient in the title. Furthermore, the specifics of Said’s concept of Orientalism won’t feature as strongly in the book, if only to avoid confusion, although I will still go with the intertextuality in coining the memetic taxon of “Orientalist memes” – which I won’t restrict to representations of Middle Eastern cultures.

In short, I think my planned use of Said was overkill.

~ Bruce

As someone opposed to anti-blasphemy laws, Internet censorship and a host of other (often religiously motivated) forms of silencing dissenting views, obviously I don’t object to the act of publishing cartoons depicting blasphemous material. If I have an objection to the content, I’ll voice my objection about the content – not to its publication per se. (Obviously there are possible qualifications such as the scope of a given publication, but I can’t see how that is relevant to the case of say the Jyllands-Posten cartoons).

As someone who sees in religion at its best, redundant means of doing what you can do without religion, and at worst, the means of doing great harm to the world and to one’s own mind, obviously I don’t object to the criticism of Islam, or any other religion. If I have an objection to the criticism, I’ll voice my objection about the criticism, and it will be because I think that it’s inept. Not because it’s “politically incorrect” (or any other victimhood label that incompetent heretics like to romanticise their inept critique with).

I don’t get offended easily. I just reserve the right to criticise bad or flawed arguments, and I have no treaties that prevent me from subjecting anyone from this kind of criticism. Nor am I rushing to enter into such a treaty – I like having my intellection independence.

So, keeping all of this in mind, I just want to say something about cartoons depicting the archetypal Islamic terrorist.

Why does it seem that whenever someone plonks a generic Islamic terrorist into their cartooning, the terrorist is almost always portrayed as Middle Eastern in appearance? Forget the portrayal of specific terrorists, or specific people alleged to inspire terrorism – obviously their portrayal will be of whatever appearance their real-selves are. It’s the generalisms I’m talking about.

We know that Islamic terrorist organisations have recruited Caucasians, and indeed, Caucasians have been arrested in relation to Islamic terrorist causes. We know from the Bali bombings, that Islamic terrorist plots can be orchestrated my Asians. Then we have several ethnic groups from Africa that produce their own terrorist groups. There are no ethnic barriers to participation in Islamic terrorism.

So why do the cartoons not seem to reflect this? And can you really dismiss claims of such cartoons being xenophobic, when they have such ethnic fixations?

I’m rather strongly suspect that a number of the cartoonists guilty of this kind of ethnic fixation aren’t particularly aware of their own fixation – being more myopic than intentionally racially charged. Others, I’m sure, really do fixate on matters of immigration, cultural (if not racial) purity, using the legitimate practice of the criticism of religion as a mask to make them look more respectable.

The risks seem obvious to me. The generation of racial stereotypes is an undesirable outcome, bad enough in its consequences alone to call for serious concern. Further to this already serious concern, the practice of the criticism of religion is itself put at risk by opening itself up to being undermined by association with, and complete subversion by, racist political movements. Good criticism of religion shouldn’t be used to the end of the former, and is precious enough to be protected from the latter.

Indeed, mimicry being a good trick (as Daniel Dennett likes to put it) in evolutionary terms, racism dressed up as legitimate criticism of religion can be seen memetically as being analogous to a virus that appropriates a protein layer to pass itself off as something its not – to avoid detection and go about its replication relatively undisturbed. This is to the detriment of the legitimate criticism of religion, given that they (the criticism of religion and racism dressed up to look like it) are both in competition with each other for your brain’s resources. (Not to mention the consequences of racism being able to proliferate by side-stepping detection like this.)

We need to be on our guard. We need to continually ratchet up our critical faculties to detect the latest batch of deleterious viral memes, especially when they pass themselves off as something important. Seriously, if you had an important project you were working on on your computer, targeted and infected by viruses. Would you want the risk of having to delete your files and start from scratch if your work couldn’t be salvaged?

Seriously, do you think you’d do your best criticism of religion while some of your brain’s equivalent of clock cycles were being appropriated by xenophobic memes seeking to have themselves replicated in your work?

So when making criticisms of Islam (or indeed, anything cultural), amongst a raft of other matters of critical thought (recognising the various iterations of Islam, criticism of Islam not being generalisms about Muslims, etc.), please consider that concerns about stereotypical depiction of race (and gender, and other groupings by which to Other) don’t just disappear. And when reading criticisms of religion, please don’t forget to keep an eye out for those Other-isms creeping in – they’re selfish replicators and will gladly take up residence in your brain to that end.

As a way of exercising your critical faculties, I invite you to have a browse of Atheist Cartoons. Consider the depiction of race (and not just the most recent cartoons – I think the artist is becoming more aware as time goes by).

I’m sure that the author has no racist or sexist (or any other bigoted) intent, which I think makes it a good source to consider the presence of memes that may have got past the critical faculties of the artist – if there’s any stereotyping going on, it’s most likely unintentional and hence an example of how these memes can find a host in an innocent. Aside from these matters, I think Atheist Cartoons is mostly a good read – hence one of those things I think should be protected from the spread of the various Other-isms.

There will probably be an extent to which these kind of parasitic memes are present within the criticism of religion, but I think if kept to a minimum though the application of properly considered, critical thought, and only expressed naively, it’s forgivable. Aside from the risk post to the subjects of the Othering, and aside from the risk posed to the criticism of religion posed directly by ethnocentric memes themselves, there is another, more indirect risk.

Returning to the analogy of a computer virus, we are all in a society bound by negotiated social contracts. Much like a workplace computer network policy. Say your work has a virus – an inconvenient but not terminal infection in as far as your abilities to handle it are concerned. But what about if your network policy demands that you delete your work all the same, just to be safe. Your work would have been safer to never have been infected in the first place, or at least, if infected, not to an extent that would invite the policy to be strictly enforced.

Brought back to reality, this analogy finds itself expressed whenever an atheistic body of critique finds itself the subject of censorship due to the odd bit of xenophobia that has slipped its way into the mix, either naively or through the efforts of malicious meme-smiths like the BNP. Allowing these memes to run rampant within the body of the criticism of religion doesn’t just invite censorship, it enables the censors by providing them with a cause – it’s why Pat Condell and his chumming up with BNP members on YouTube undermines atheistic causes.

I don’t advocate censorship in these cases, and I’ve opposed all of the same censoring laws that Pat Condell has. I don’t think the appearance of having a cause justifies the censors at all – but if the price of denying them even that is to apply a bit of critical thought (which for a large part of atheist commentary online is a part of the mandate – REASON!), then I’m quite happy to advocate critical thought over sloppy thinking.

Prime your intellectual virus checkers, atheists. Critical thinking is your friend, perhaps more so than anyone else’s.

~ Bruce

If you’re like me, you have Firefox sessions that run with about thirty odd tabs open. Eventually you have to whittle them down because somewhere in there is some flash content causing memory leakage. But you don’t want to get rid of all your tabs because you want to use them soon, and bookmarking them presents you with issues; you may for example, forget a source if you file it away among your bookmarks, but you won’t if it’s there in front of you next to your WordPress tab.

Due to this habit of leaving tabs open, tabs which I don’t always end up using, I’m starting a new series of blog posts – The Firefox Tab Purge.

In no particular order, I’ll link to a few articles and videos and make brief comments.

Given that Firefox is chewing at my CPU cycles and filling up my RAM, I’ll get to it then.

• Russell Blackford gives us some food for thought about the concept of “New Atheism” in ‘Voicing our disbelief‘.
• Homophobia in Africa, and the developed world’s involvement gets more coverage in ‘American’s Role Seen in Uganda Anti-Gay Push‘, and ‘UN rights boss urges Uganda to shelve anti-gay bill‘.
• On the topic of the ownership of children, which I wanted to discuss at greater length (and still may), in ‘Put children’s lives above dogma‘ Trina Hoaks gives notice of a FFRF action alert detailing the debate over parental responsibilities versus religion after the tragic death of Madeline “Kara” Neumann who was denied insulin because her parents considered it a violation of their faith. In ‘Skin-Deep Christianity‘, PZ Myers points out that parents are the custodians of children, not their owners.
• Daniel Dennett made much the same point in his most recent talk at TED (25:31), where he argued for his one policy proposal from Breaking The Spell – that children be taught fact-based comparative religion at school.
• In ‘Shouldn’t Australians be spending their money on a solution to child abuse‘, The Fascist Donkey covers how the Federal Government’s proposed Nanny State Internet filter detracts from the cause of child protection, while in ‘All R-Rated Films To Be Treated Like Porn in South Australia‘, Nick Broughall points out the ludicrous flaws inherent in a new piece of legislation we have over my way: R-Rated DVDs have to be kept together in their own marked section. Videos featuring female ejaculation also look to be in line for being banned Australia wide, which makes me ask, what happens to the Californication Season 1 boxed set?
• The Angry Astronomer gets stuck into that more/less evolved, teleological fallacy in ‘Men More Evolved?‘ This one really rubs me up the wrong way – like when “de-evolve” has been used in Star Trek and Doctor Who. Worse still, I’ve seen the argument deployed by academics at Uni.
• Apparently Niall has mistaken me (albeit briefly and maybe only typographically) for Bruce Sterling in linking to me in ‘Tender Linksels‘. Of course it’s a terribly flattering mistake all the same, so I’ll take what I can get! Torque Control, as the “blog of the editorial staff of Vector, the critical journal of the British Science Fiction Association”, looks to be deserving of a deeper look-in and perhaps addition to the blogroll.
• Last but by no means least, Leo Igwe, an African atheist you may not have heard of but should have, gets good representation in a number of posts Sean The Blogonaut links to, drawing attention away from a bit of celebratory back-slapping.

And that’s Firefox Tab Purge #1!

~ Bruce

Update (17/01/10): Moleboy points out in the comments that the parents of Madeline Neumann were ignorant of her specific need for insulin, while still being neglectful, adding context to the case.

Okay, I’ve added five blogs to the blogroll and will get around to adding them to my aggregator in due course. The five blogs are…

Blag Hag – Jen McCreight is a skeptic, atheist blogger of better-half of the species. I’m picky about who I add to my blogroll, and I’ll be getting pickier still in future, but from the look of things I won’t be considering removing Blag Hag from the blogroll any time soon. I’ve only just started reading her blog as a lurker, but I like what I see. Pro-science, nerdy, etc. Besides, I don’t have enough female bloggers represented on my blogroll.

Metamagician and the Hellfire Club – I’ve only recently started reading Russell Blackford’s writing, and only his online material at that. Thus far I like what I see. Russell Blackford will be one of the guests at The Rise of Atheism conference in March (the conference name is a bit autistic-triumphal if you ask me, but there you go), and he’s an Aussie author writing on a number of topics I’m interested in (broadly, ethics and humanism).

Neil’s Second Decade – Neil, like myself, is somewhat of a Web 1.0 veteran, having been around in the 90s on Angelfire. Unlike me, he’s not shy about his Angelfire effort, which is fair considering that mine was pretty adolescent and suffered editing far more lax than what I practice here. Neil’s standards are somewhat higher in this regard. Neil has from time to time, given me little snippets of advice about writing that I’ve taken away, only to have them snowball into somethings I’ve found more useful, and more enjoyable than first glances suggested. The sign of an experienced teacher, no doubt.

Personal Reflections – Why, oh why, was this not on my blogroll already. I pop over to Jim Belshaw’s blog often enough to lurk. What’s wrong with me? For those who don’t know, Jim Belshaw’s reflections have a habit of resonating, at least for me. And while on occasion I disagree with a few points he’s made over the years (e.g. ask him ‘is Australia a Christian nation?’), Jim convey’s himself in a civic manner, and argues with sincerity. Which can make his blog somewhat of an oasis of calm in the blogosphere on contentious topics – very much-needed.

Why Evolution Is True – The blog to accompany Jerry Coyne’s book. I found it useful to visit here during the kerfuffle surrounding Francis Collins’ appointment to the NIH. I should probably read more of this blog. I should probably read Jerry Coyne’s book!

And those are the new additions!

~ Bruce

For those who have been following me on Twitter, and who have picked up on the occasional reference here and there in the comments and elsewhere in passing, I’m going to start writing a book this year. With an aim to finishing it in the early spring of 2011. (And that’s a southern hemisphere spring, by the way).

Neil has already asked about the book, so I’d better be out with it.

I’ve even got a title I’m happy with. Human In A Warped Mirror: Religious Memes That Orient The Godless.

If the title doesn’t give away, the book deals with memes that misrepresent the godless – specifically religious memes that fall under the hypothetical memetic taxon of “Orientalist memes”. Orientalism originally referring to the representation by The West, of The Orient, for specific (political) purposes – a notion formulated by Edward Said – my use of  “orient” will however be the verb meaning “to position”, which isn’t entirely divorced from the etymology of “The Orient” when one considers the geographical nature of the term.

In my treatment, where a memeplex is a complex of memes, and a meme is an element of culture which is imitated*; “Orientalist memes” increase the fitness of the memeplex they belong to by misrepresenting the hosts of competing memes – and the competing memes themselves.

This I plan to argue, generates negative selection pressures against competing memes simply by polarizing opinion against them and their hosts; mitigates against negative selection pressures by downplaying and/or marginalizing criticism from other memeplexes; and makes the orientalist memeplex subject to positive selection benefits through a mutualistic exploitation of the psychology of its hosts – the orienting of The Other granting host-benefits in terms of self-identification, group membership and so on.

While I will be more or less side-stepping Said’s epistemological concerns about representation (and using the term “misrepresentation” for the sake of ease), I’d like to think this treatment will actually be broadly compatible with Said’s observations of Western representations of The East. Further, I’d like to think that it would have utility in various post-colonial applications – the “Dreamtime”, a colonial Christian mutation of The Dreaming of Aboriginal Australia, comes to mind.

All the same, I won’t be focusing the book upon colonial depictions of conquered people, but rather upon religious depictions, or orientings, of the irreligious. (A “practise what we preach” chapter in the third part will argue that the godless need to be vigilant for their own orientings of the religious – to avoid hypocrisy, to support a moral foundation from which to campaign for equality and even more practically – to help inoculate themselves against Orientalist memes deployed by the religious).

“The Godless” won’t refer entirely to just actual godless people, but the potential godless as well – although the focus will still remain predominantly upon the actual. Much is often made of the logical necessity of various human virtues being a product of belief in God, and conversely, the logical necessity of a lack of virtue being a product of atheism. In any analysis of logical necessity, one has to look at possible “other worlds”; if something is possible, it’s opposite isn’t necessary.

If in a possible “other world”, a theist deploying the orientalist meme “you can’t be good without god” has an atheistic counterpart capable of being good, then not only is their argument logically invalid, but they are prejudicing themselves. Their possible other self is a potential actual-self after all, a potential actual-self they are dismissing out of hand!

To me, this is a rather irrationally misanthropic, logically self-defeating and dangerous proposition.

“If I gave up on God, I’d become a monster!” – irrationally misanthropic in that it sells their own humanity short with little justification, logically self-defeating in that it demonstrates a very human concern about being good while at the same time claiming humanity is incapable of good, and dangerous in that it leaves the individual open to authoritarian exploitation through a flawed search for salvation. Orientalist memes may confer certain benefits to their hosts, but they can also confer considerably deleterious side-effects!

Indeed, it is for this reason of seemingly perennial misanthropy in misrepresenting the godless, that I’ve chosen “Human In A Warped Mirror” as a title – both the oriented godless in our actual world and the godless other world counterparts of any given theist, can be rendered a human in a warped mirror by religious, Orientalist memes.

I’ll attempt a tentative taxonomy of religious, orientalist memes, perhaps along the lines of…

• Equivocators (e.g. “evangelical”, “fundamentalist”, “militant” etc) – terms stripped of their previous meanings so they can be meaninglessly applied to atheists, but with the relevant stigma from the old definitions still attached.
• Demonizers (e.g. “drug addicts”, “rapists”, “Satanists” etc) – crude boogey-man-isms.
• Cybermanisms (e.g. “social Darwinist”, “scientistic”, “logical positivist”) – misrepresentations that position the godless in general as heading down a path devoid of empathy and feeling.
• Strawgoats – The deployment of strawman memes (such as any of the above) against specific (usually high profile) godless scapegoats, by the godless themselves.
• And more…

Naturally I’ll have other tasks in the book I’ll have to undertake before the memetic taxonomy, such as defending my use of the meme concept in the first place – addressing misconceptions, acknowledging some of the limits and discussing implications for my conclusions and uses. Speculative science, or philosophy? (I’ve got answers in mind).

And before this justification of my method, I’ll have to explain why I think this is an issue – with reference to and analysis of the values I argue for equality and pluralism from. My basic assumptions aren’t shared by all.

Finally, I’ll attempt in the third part of the book, to suggest ways in which the effects of religious, Orientalist memes, and indeed the memes themselves – and not just in the one way I’ve mentioned above.

All while trying to keep the human impact of it all in mind, to keep it relevant.

The first tentative steps of the book are already under way. I know much of the skeleton of what research and digging I have to do. Although the writing won’t start in full swing until spring of this year.

And then there’s the grant application to get out-of-the-way first! And publishers to deal with down the track. (Shudder).

I’m looking forward to joining the SA Writers’ Centre next Wednesday, though.

~ Bruce

* From the Greek mimeme, from which Richard Dawkins drew a definition for the meme in The Selfish Gene (1976).

Update: In other news, Richard Dawkins is on the card for Adelaide Writers’ Week this year. I may just have to pop along.

I’ve got a new term: Strawgoating. A portmanteau of strawman and scapegoat.

The strawman, for those who don’t know, is a type of argument where one generates a distorted version of another’s argument, then proceeds to critique the distortion. The term comes from the practice of soldiers using men of straw to practice melee against – said strawmen not fighting back, or more specifically, not presenting the same challenge as a real enemy combatant. Similarly, the caricature of an opponent’s position presents less of a challenge than their actual position – the caricature is a rhetorical man of straw, or strawman argument.

The original scapegoat, as Christopher Hitchens often reminds us, was a goat upon which a group of people would pile all of their sins before sending it on its way off a cliff – supposedly taking the sins with it. The modern, common version of the phrase is not that much different: to find someone else to blame so that one doesn’t have to face criticism, recrimination, loss of rights of loss of privilege.

So what’s “strawgoating”?

The practice of taking a stereotype (strawman argument) applied to one’s group and applying it to another group member (scapegoat) in order to differentiate one’s self from the stereotype, hence evading criticism, recrimination, loss of rights and loss of privilege.

For example…

“Oh, I’m not like Richard Dawkins; I’m not certain about God’s non-existence so I’m not strident about it; I’m a tolerant atheist!”

Certain, strident intolerance against the religious is a stereotype commonly applied against atheists – and popularly against Richard Dawkins. The silly thing being that Dawkins quite arguably isn’t strident (it’s debatable only because it’s ambiguous), and moreover has expressed the view that “it’s never good for a scientist to be certain about anything” (I paraphrase). Furthermore, Dawkins has never argued for the removal of people’s religious liberties – and indeed it’s against his “liberal values”. It’s a strawman argument, this certain-strident-intolerant smear.

When atheists take stereotypes (strawmen) like these and apply them to one of their number (such as Dawkins, who is a common target of this kind of attack), they are using their fellow atheist as a scapegoat. Hence, “strawgoating”.

Specifically…

• Strawgoating is the behaviour – the means by which a “strawgoat” is spread.
• A strawgoat is a meme wherein a strawman-stereotype is reduced to an individual scapegoat.

Self-aware or not, it’s a tragically selfish thing to do to say nothing about honesty. This practice may (or may not) buy an individual a small amount of privilege or the recognition of their rights (the advantage of hosting the meme), but it reinforces a stereotype instrumental to the loss of equality in the first place. Subsequently this makes life more difficult for others in the group, usually not the least amongst them, the scapegoat!

Strawgoating is and strawgoats are harmful, and they shouldn’t go unchallenged. Recriminations aren’t necessarily a part of any given rebuttal – the individual spreading the strawgoat may not be aware of the nature of the meme they spread – but the strawgoat in question needs to be addressed and an individual’s critical thinking inoculated against it.

~ Bruce

P.S. I nominate in a (very) tentative taxonomy of memes, the “strawgoat” as a taxon beneath the taxon “Orientalist memes” – the latter, larger taxon consisting of memes that misrepresent groups of people to the benefit of their human hosts. “Orientalist” being a nod of sorts to Edward Said’s Orientalism.

There are many reasons that atheists get labelled “angry”, and many of them are particularly bad reasons at that. Either in specific instances, or applied generally to the atheist population, these kinds of dismissals on the grounds of “anger” are misleading.

It’s also, from the point of honest debate, a particularly meaningless observation.

If atheists are angry, does that actually make them wrong? No.

Consider the following.

Joe steps on Tom’s toe which hurts. Tom gets angry with Joe, “you stepped on my toe!”

“Ahah!”, says Joe. “You are angry, therefore I did not step on your toe!”

Nobody in their right mind would ever accept this line of defence, yet the amount of rhetorical coinage given to a charge of “anger” in some instances would seem to suggest there are exceptions in people’s sensibilities.

Just how angry are atheists and what kind of anger are we talking about? A perpetual, pervasive anger or a momentary anger in response to having their toes stepped on?

If the former, do they have cause to be pervasively angry and is this anger proportional? Could it be that they’ve had a rough time in life, perhaps fired from a job for being an atheist? Treated with contempt by family for being an atheist? Indoctrinated as a child and made to feel pervasively guilty for being merely human?

Sure, this kind of anger isn’t good for them and they do need to get over it eventually, but that doesn’t make them bad for being this way, nor does it necessarily mean it’s entirely their fault. Nor does it mean that what they are saying in anger is in any way wrong.

And how pervasively angry are the atheist population anyway? I’ve seen the charge over and over and it’s always in my experience been simply assumed. Evidence isn’t forthcoming and the attempts at evidence are ludicrous exaggerations seemingly the product of cognitive biases.

All of this could be avoided if people skipped making these baseless assertions and instead asked “what do atheists have to be angry about?”, or “what does this particular atheist have to be angry about?” This approach doesn’t presuppose a matter of fact that isn’t necessarily established, it doesn’t (conveniently) dismiss the subject out of hand, it doesn’t lump people together into some undifferentiated group, it provides context to any anger if there’s any and unlike making baseless accusations, it shows a shred of human decency. All while being able to address any meaningful inquiry one may have about atheists who happen to actually be angry.

Indeed, if you came across an atheist who was angry at the world because they had some traumatic religious experience, wouldn’t you want to show them some basic compassion instead of writing them off? Wouldn’t you want to know why they were angry instead of simply using their suffering as a cheap means to position yourself and/or your religion? What kind of person wouldn’t?

Why prejudice this kind of meaningful, humane and honest approach just to score points? There are probably obvious answers, but I’ll save this for another day.

Aside from the obvious uses some people may have in finding an imaginary reason to dismiss others who don’t believe in the imaginary, I think the reason this happens at all is more complex than a simple uncritical parsing of bigoted memes. There seems to be more to the psychology of it.

I’m prone to using Hanlon’s Razor…

“Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”

Where stupidity is a catch-bag for various degrees of incompetence, between genuine stupidity and being simply mistaken. Even Hanlon’s razor can sound angrier that it is.

Rather than claims that “atheists are angry” being seen as either entirely out of malice, or “because my pastor told me so”, I think a failure to empathise and communicate needs to be seriously considered as a cause. Unless someone has printed this post off for you, there is an obvious contributor in this respect staring you in the face – The Internet.

Perhaps you think something you’ve read on the Internet is motivated by anger. A textual post devoid of verbal inflections and body language – which are usually carriers of important context. A post written perhaps in haste, as many on the Internet are, being possibly impulsive and only indicative of a very short spike of annoyance – or perhaps without careful attention given to prose allowing for the illusion of anger.

Perhaps it’s just you reading anger into a text written by someone in a different state of mind all together.

It’s not easy to tell, at least without considered inquiry. And the Internet being rapid fire as it is, your judgement may be subject to the same communicative disinhibition. Internet technology is known to amplify acrimony and atrophy empathy, at least without a certain amount of experience and consideration by the user. It presents barriers to truly “getting” your interlocutor, leaving things up to your imagination. And if you perhaps have an axe to grind, confirmation bias may make that final leap of the imagination required for you to level a false allegation – such as an allegation of anger.

And consider that for quite a number of isolated atheists, the Internet is a rare means of communication that allows them to speak openly – the limitations of the technology therefore potentially having a disproportionate effect upon atheists than on other groups. I suspect then that when making generalisations about atheists, this skew has to be taken into account if Internet culture is considered as evidence – in that it may exaggerate perceptions of precisely the kinds of behaviours that the Internet tends to encourage.

And what of the psychology of the reader?

We aren’t all equal in our interpersonal (and intrapersonal) skills (both being separate intelligences amongst Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences). And before you give yourself a pat on the back, consider some of the possible the implications of the Dunning-Krueger effect, a state of affairs where one’s own lack of a skill robs them of the ability to assess it, leading to the overestimation of said skill.

At the very least, there’s already research that’s been published that investigates the roll of the Dunning-Kruger effect in self-estimations of sensitivity ¹. (Although the title of the paper “…Narcissism, not Actual Competence, predicts Self-Estimated Ability”, seems a bit too categorical to me).

Basically what I’m arguing is that people can and do tend to over-exaggerate their insight into other people’s minds, particularly those with the least ability. The fact that so often the conclusion of “angry” seems to be arrived at so quickly, with so little analysis, is somewhat of a give away.

And maybe the people drawing these conclusions really believe their accusations, being somewhat emotionally colour blind.

It’s like they paint a portrait of their interlocutors, with two primary and one secondary colours, not having a complete palette of human emotional experience. Like having only angry, happy and Schadenfreude in their repertoire. No disappointment, not tested patience, no sanguine brooding, no melancholy, no yearning, no cheek, no mischief, no hope, no desperation, no moral outrage (just moral posturing), none of these and none of the many, many more shades of human experience.

Really, it’s quite pathetic when it’s like this. Like they’re incomplete, that their emotional maturity stopped growing at some point far, far too early.

And what’s more, they often seem to me to treat their own stunted appreciation as if it’s an objective appraisal and that no other perspective on emotion is valid or contestable. It’s obvious to them. Too obvious.

When this is the cause of a false accusation of anger, it’s no cause to actually become angry. These people are to be pitied.

These people’s lives are rendered in these stunted palettes. Whenever they share a meal, whenever they try to get close to a friend, whenever they make love, they’re missing out on the full experience.

All the same their collective accusing of anger is the stuff of stereotypes, and it’s usually not them who have to deal with the fall out. Either they aren’t an atheist at all, or if they are, they benefit through their accusation positioning them away from the accused. “Oh, I’m an atheist but I’m not angry like [insert scapegoat here].” And the behaviour of projection isn’t to be discounted here, especially if self-reflection isn’t their strong point.

Any pity you have for these types of accusers shouldn’t extend to enabling. They’re doing harm. Rejection of their silly charges and a sincere, explicit voicing of pity for their lack of appreciation of the human condition is I think, the right course of action.

And of course, the take home message in all of this is not to take accusations of anger so seriously. The truth of these accusations isn’t always a given, the reason why they’re relevant at all is usually in doubt and the reason behind the accusations far more interesting.

The “angry atheist” meme, and its propagation, needs to be subjected to rigorous critical analysis, along with the conduct of its hosts for their generation of stereotypes by spreading it.

~ Bruce

^{1 D. Ames, L. Kammrath (2004) ‘Mind-Reading and Metacognition: Narcissism, not Actual Competence, Predicts Self-Estimated Ability’, Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 28 (3), pp. 187–209.}

Those years keep ticking on by. This is the fifth click-over that I’ve blogged, and probably not the last.

A few clicks ago (2007?), I resolved to have no more New Year Resolutions. I think I’ve stuck to that.

Still, I have goals for this year. I’m considering the period from April through to September inclusive, to be the period with the set topics and suggested readings to guide my blogging on positive philosophical content for the godless.

Up until the end of March will be a kind of silly season on this blog. Trial runs of prose, continuing with the usual topics, but a bit more laid back than in past years.

Maybe I’ll do a bit more satire until then. Although I’ll be busy with something else. I’m planning on submitting a grant application to write a book, which I’ll post more about in due course. The due date for applications falls within March, but irrespective of the success of my application I’ll continue to forge ahead with the book all the same. Maybe if I can’t publish in through more conventional means, I’ll release it as a free e-book.

So that’s what I’ve got ahead of me this year. Do you have any interesting plans?

Whatever you’ll be doing, I hope it works out well for you (unless of course it’s EVIL). Happy New Year!

~ Bruce

Dedication: To anyone who may find this interesting, but more-so to the science fiction fans most likely to find it offensive.

Science fiction, probably more than any other genre has the capacity for meaningful speculation. When executed deftly, it’s differentiated from its cousins in the broader fantasy genre in that within science fiction, consequences matter. There is an internal logic, obscured as much of it may be from the reader.

If resurrection violates this internal logic, the dead stay dead. The passing of a loved one of a protagonist, or the protagonist themselves, means something.

The logic, if it violates current scientific understanding, must at least explain the discrepancy. Either it is additive-speculative, or it rests upon the current scientific knowledge being wrong in some respect. The proverbial alien railway station is an (IMHO, much overused and abused) example of the former, Harry Harrison’s To The Stars trilogy, resting upon an assumed error in Einsteinian gravity, is an example of the latter.

X-Men, with its constant magical resurrections, and it’s bastardised contortion of evolutionary theory and genetics, is techno-fantasy. Anything physical can happen and it won’t violate the internal logic. Doctor Who is much the same. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, as apparently is any scientific speculation sufficiently beyond an author’s ability or motivation.

The strengths of X-Men and Doctor Who come mostly from their ability to appeal to emotion via allegory and other methods and elements. There are no consequences. X-Men are resurrected with such frequency that nowadays the script writers mock themselves by explicitly giving no explanation at all. And how often do you hear The Doctor say “But that’s impossible!” only to find out that it isn’t, or “but they were wiped out!” and they weren’t?

Anything can happen, anything can be undone, and hence nothing matters nearly as much.

And oh am I sick of prophecy. Someone needs to throw James Gleick’s Chaos, and Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s The Black Swan at these people.

Just mapping the initial conditions is bad enough, without considering the computational power and inherent epistemological barriers placed upon any conscience – i.e. the proverbial Black Swan that everyone thought didn’t exist. Prophecy doesn’t work.

Prophecy is a blight upon humanity, misleading all with overconfident platitudes that at best serve to dupe people into fulfilling the prophesy, possibly causing catastrophe along the way – human history is riven with such misguided disasters.

Why not explore the risks inherent to prophecy? Instead, usually you’ll get some sagely figure smugly nodding after the protagonist has just got the picture.

The Truth of prophecy is confirmed once all the plot elements come together like a broken teacup rising from the floor to assemble itself upon a table, just in time for our hero to take a sip. Usually with no cause or reason at all.

It would be bad enough if it were only this silly. But it’s worse. It’s a wasted opportunity.

Apocalyptic visions have been used to manipulate and to console through the convenient removal of uncomfortable ambiguities, and they still function this way today. Prominently. Having a prophecy with no critical exploration is a waste of a chance for exploration.

Bring back the ambiguity. Make people uncomfortable. Screw comfortable. Get people thinking about the nature of prophecy and questioning the way it informs politics.

Interlude I: Battlestar Galactica is particularly notorious for its light-handed, fawning treatment of prophecy, and deserves to be rebuked on such a basis. No amount of “Oh, maybe the prophecy was wrong”, followed by “Oh wait, no it wasn’t. We should have had faith all along”, in the remake, can save it.

And while we’re on the topic of supposedly inevitable plot developments, I have a suggestion for script writers and authors of anthologies with contrived story arcs.

If your characters evolve in a different direction to that which you had envisaged in your original, convoluted plans, so much so that it makes elements of the plot unlikely – make changes to the plot rather than cripple the development of your characters. Evolution isn’t teleological, nor should it be for our proxies in your story – it cheapens them and reduces them to obviously designed clichés and then how are we supposed to meaningfully relate to them?

So how to treat this kind of thing?

Here’s an idea for a season’s story arc.

• “The elders have foreseen that you will prosper and lead us to victory over our oppressors”, the wizened ones tell our protagonist.
• … our hero dies from an unforeseen and mundane accident – something like an undiagnosed food allergy the prophets apparently weren’t aware of – a third of the way through the season.
• The remainder of the season sees the disillusioned survivors trying to reconcile their ideals with their empirical reality, the very concept of prophecy being deconstructed along the way.

Importantly, by the end of the season, this conflict between ideals, prophesy and evidence would not be resolved. Because if there’s something I loathe in stories passing themselves off as science fiction more than the uncritical acceptance of prophecy, it’s moral didacticism.

I am so sick of having the protagonist give us a contrived lecture. Contrary to what the writer may be thinking, and contrary to what a bunch of old stuffed shirts think about classical literature, moral didacticism isn’t morally engaging. And it’s not particularly convincing in science fiction stories either.

Imagine a 31st century wedding – the best man toasts the groom and the groom. “I’m glad we could have such a loving couple marry, not like back before The Eugenics Wars^tm!”

The lecture is obviously there for our benefit and thus breaks the fourth wall in a manner that should only be permitted in farce. An individual living in a morally advanced culture where gay marriage is and has been practised for a long time is bound to take the practice for granted – so they would find little need to deliver a polemic on such occasions.

Star Trek is riddled with this kind of moment-breaking, critically un-engaging tripe. Usually fired over some ignorant sod’s shoulder, out of the screen and at the viewer by captains of starships. Firing morals at the audience is a bad, bad way of getting them thinking about morals.

It’s like Gene Roddenberry has descended from his mountain top to deliver the Flying Spaghetti Monster’s edicts to us. “Thou shall not…” Script writers shall not use exposition to opine. Roddenberry can clamber back up his mountain and take the gold-pressed latinum tablets with him.

Give the reader or the audience an opportunity to explore an issue – that’s what you want to do if you want to morally engage with them. Use the speculative powers of science fiction to design a thought experiment – a problem to solve. Have the protagonist attempt to solve it, and if the dilemma is resolved then have it done in a sufficiently morally ambiguous fashion that the reader can’t deduce endorsement from the choice of the protagonist. And have the decision weigh on the characters. Have them doubt themselves.

The problem in The Genesis of The Daleks, that of The Doctor’s choice whether or not to commit genocide against a species far more genocidal, was executed perfectly in this respect. Whatever decision The Doctor made would have weighed on him, and the viewer (unless conceited) wouldn’t be able to arrive at a conclusion as to if the decision was the right one. This indecision leaves the audience thinking about the ethics of the scenario, which is what you really want if you have any artistic or moral integrity.

Although, if you are in it to generate a franchise to merchandise to a cult following, I guess anything that preferentially attracts those who don’t think for themselves is what you’ll want to use. Anyone wanna buy a second-hand tricorder? Star Fleet uniform? Spotted Trill buttplug?

Interlude II: I’M SICK OF HEARING LASERS AND EXPLOSIONS IN THE VACUUM OF SPACE!!! YES, I MEAN YOU ORIGINAL BSG!!! PIPE DOWN BACK THERE!!!*

So what am I saying? If only we went back to the Golden Years? Clarke, Asimov and the others?

Hell no. I loves me some Asimov, but no.

I’m not even a genre purist – I love the work of Michael Moorcock for example – psychedelic-techno-high-fantasy-with-optional-scenes-of-incest-and-remorseless-genocide have a place on my shelf. (Although I think Behold The Man belongs strictly within the confines of science fiction and is a decent piece of literature at that.)

I even have room for steampunk (Sean).

What’s more, I think character development has fared better in hands other than those of the classical science fiction authors. Newer protagonists and antagonists are more easy to relate to – more real.

Asimov’s The Gods Themselves is an excellent book. In terms of its imaginative-additive scientific speculation, it is probably one of the best (Hugo and Nebula award-winning) science fiction books ever – possibly the best. The speculative plot device in question being the exchange of elements between two Universes between which the weak nuclear force is different – resulting in the production of energy from the decay of impossible isotopes in both Universes. But with the laws of physics of both bleeding into each other – catastrophe becoming increasingly inevitable. It’s good speculative science fiction.

But…

The characters and dialogue leave a bit to be desired. At least amongst the human characters. The alien characters were oddly interesting and fleshed out in such detail that I found they became easier to relate to. Conversely, I found the interplay between Denison and Selene in the third book to be particularly wooden, which while in itself not necessarily a problem – some people are a bit wooden and this would at least have suited Denison – they were too wooden for their developing relationship.

Specifically, the flirting between Denison and Selene (“did you sell any?” haw haw haw) was like a bad attempt at casual by alienated IRC denizens. As much as Asimov may have tried to make it convincing, you just can’t see Selene leaving her relationship with a flawed, controlling partner, to embrace Denison’s stilted attempts at laid-back charisma, despite his prowess as a scientist. But then, writing about women wasn’t amongst Asimov’s many strong points. Indeed, this was a problem with the golden age of science fiction in general.

I’d like to see Asimov’s rigorous, golden age approach to the science in science fiction repeated. But I’d like newer takes on the characters. Resonance between the audience is at its height when the consequences matter for the characters, and when the characters themselves are plausible and more easily able to draw empathy.

Further to this, I think the whole genre can and should be subverted. Particularly through the adoption of elements of weird fiction – which predate the modern genre-niche both the golden age of science fiction, and the more contemporary, more commercial pap rests within. Or at least a perversion of these weird elements could be used to subvert science fiction. I think this is the key to maximise the resonance of a newer kind of science fiction.

“The true weird tale has something more than secret murder, bloody bones, or a sheeted form clanking chains according to rule. A certain atmosphere of breathless and unexplainable dread of outer, unknown forces must be present; and there must be a hint, expressed with a seriousness and portentousness becoming its subject, of that most terrible conception of the human brain — a malign and particular suspension or defeat of those fixed laws of Nature which are our only safeguard against the assaults of chaos and the daemons of unplumbed space.”

(H.P. Lovecraft, ‘Supernatural Horror in Literature’, 1934)

It’s often been pointed out how looking up at the stars can fill you simultaneously with both exultation and existential loneliness. This is more-so the case amongst the godless who don’t have a deity to fill that loneliness – something that should on some level terrorize both the religious and the godless (the former being at risk if their faith fails).

Why then can’t a merely natural, as opposed to a supernatural agency, be responsible for a weird kind of horror? How hard would it be to pervert Lovecraft’s analysis to this end? A perversion with…

“A certain atmosphere of breathless and unexplainable dread of outer, unintuitive forces must be present; and there must be a hint, expressed with a seriousness and portentousness becoming its subject, of a terrible and most alien conception of the human brain — a cruel and uncaring suspension or refutation of our calculated laws of nature which are our only safeguard against the unforgiving vacuum and energies of outer space.”

I think this could both compliment and subvert the current genre, back into a pre-genre state more closely resembling a proper part of literary tradition. What’s more breathless than the vacuum of space? More of an unexplainable dread than a lethal environment our senses haven’t evolved to deal with? What’s more portentous than the sheer scale of The Universe? Who needs demons or Outer Gods?

Combine this abysmal, yawning terror with the awe and majesty of the cosmos, and you’ve got a meaningful backdrop for the conflict that drives your story.

Plunge well crafted characters that ring true into a Universe like this, where consequences matter, and I defy you to show me that it couldn’t move your reader!

Still, nobody seems to be doing anything like this. So until someone does or someone points me toward something different, I’ll have to remain increasingly annoyed with science fiction writing for some time yet. Grrrr.

~ Bruce

* Seriously, the original Battlestar Galactica wasn’t a science fiction series, it was a noisy pinball machine that used clichés in place of steel balls.

I regularly use Facebook and Twitter. That’s about as socially networked as I get.

I have Atheist Nexus and Think Atheist accounts, but I just can’t bring myself to use them regularly. When I noticed that a post on the Rational Response Squad forum linked to a thread on this blog, started an account, said “hi” and then tuned out.

These last few communities are specialised – they are atheist groups. And believe it or not, I think that because they are atheist groups, rather than more general social networks, I have a difficulty fitting it. Seriously.

I don’t like the group dynamics in gated communities. I’m like that in real life – not wanting to be pigeon-holed and not wanting to compromise my principles to fit in. Free-thought group or not, human psychology and group mentality plays a role.

Group polarisation moves the group as a herd in certain directions, if only gently. Either through the accumulation of evidence that confirms a direction (not necessarily a bad thing if the accumulation is freely subjected to deductive reasoning to counter confirmation bias), or through members’ need to fit in with a group identity.

It’s the group identity thing that gets to me the most. I think I’ve already established in past posts that to my mind, some of those of the newer members of the atheist crowd try too hard to fit in. Which can be done in complete innocence of course, but that doesn’t stop it from at times being annoying. And really, these people, the ex-fundamentalists, do need to become more self-aware. Not just to not be annoying but as a part of their recovery.

I mean, try to look at it from my perspective. The following is a paraphrase of the phenomena as I’ve witnessed it for over a decade on the net.

Them: “Haw haw stupid fundies. Creationists are stupid. I f**king hate them.”

Me: “Out-group animosity isn’t helpful.”

Them: “They deserve it. They detract from humanity. You’re siding with them now!”

Me: “I wasn’t one of them like you.”

Seriously. For ex-fundamentalists to call fundamentalists, stupid, is stupid.

And for crying out loud, unless they’ve fallen in with a bunch of complete and utter dicks, they aren’t going to impress anyone by pwning fish in a barrel anyway. The best approach (IMHO) is not to try and act the way you think group identity requires, but to be yourself – and if the atheist group that’s taken you in is any good, they’ll accept you on that basis.

Someone who has endured indoctrination, vilification and so on, and can still act in good faith, no matter how intelligent they are will always get more respect from me. But unchecked in-group dynamics don’t necessarily encourage this. Of course, this in turn discourages membership by those of a more mature character, which damages the group. The effect can run away with itself.

That’s my take on the “evers”, albeit less hyperbolic than before.

Then there are the inevitable attention whores.

Often, but not always those that for some reason have appointed themselves leaders of some supposed revolution. The entire leadership of the Rational Response Squad pretty much up this bunch. Indeed, the extreme end of the attention-whore category – perhaps where it intersects with the noisy-”ever” demographic.

An ungrateful, precocious bunch – which you can detect if you watch their antics and debating skills while considering how much others had invested in them. Their story gets much, much worse, which I won’t get into, simply because of how much worse it gets and that everyone involved seems to be happy with it not being talked about. Suffice to say that my worst fears about them were more than realised.

I can appreciate that some atheists, especially in the US, need community to combat the alienation. I can appreciate that in seeing the Rational Response Squad start out the apparent goal that they did, people would throw them a bone – to support them as an act of grace in order to help the people the Rational Response Squad should have been helping.  I don’t have a beef with either of these categories of people, just the cretins that exploited them.

But that’s at the really wrong end of the spectrum. There are other attention whores out there seeking the glory – spending far too much effort on self-promotion.

There are the self-appointed leaders, who talk to everyone else like their beloved pets as if they owned their audience.

There are those who post about important things on their blogs, but in no way particularly original – only to coerce people to “pay attention to the issue”, by which they mean “pay attention to my post!” (And for some reason it seems, simultaneously underselling other things that they are good at.)

There are those who like to talk like an academic, on subjects they haven’t studied. At best plagiarizing things they’ve read on the net, and at worst making stuff up as they weave appropriated buzz-words at people who’ve actually studied the subject, or at least those with some actual aptitude.

This is The Internet. And this is The Internet on group polarisation.

101 atheist try-hards, selfishly climbing over everyone else to try to become the atheist-Fonz, all the while dragging discussion in a progressively more stupid direction. There is no atheist-Fonz, and if there was, this lot wouldn’t be him.

Honestly, I know that intelligence amongst atheists is a valued resource, but I’ve got much more respect for the not-so-gifted person who knows their limitations and conducts themselves accordingly, than the mediocre intellect that mistakes itself for genius. Indeed, I could probably compile a very long list of professors who I respect much, much less than the proverbial Forest Gumps of atheism.

What’s so bloody hard about just being yourself and watching out for everyone else? Supporting but not controlling; outspoken but not talking across those already without much of a voice; donating your strengths to the community instead of blatant, and unrealistic ambitions to be an idol; why the hell not?

Well obviously there is an element of un-awareness. Participation in the dynamic can be done in innocence, and for this reason I think policies need to be deployed to gently counter the group dynamic.

But there are those who are riding the rapids of group polarisation with obvious personal ambition in mind, whatever the consequences may be for others – the loss of a comfortable and safe community, the degradation of meaningful discussion and so on. People who view others in the group as a base. I question why more isn’t done to actively prevent these people from being rewarded for this kind of behaviour.

This can’t be healthy for newcomers to atheism. And if they aren’t a major goal of these atheist web-communities, then what’s the point?

I’ve damned The Rational Response squad. I haven’t damned Think Atheist or Atheist Nexus – but in lurk-mode I’ve noticed the dynamic in effect to some extent. Which I guess given that I’ve admitted that it’s inevitable to some extent, I have to confess to a certain amount of sensitivity.

I don’t get this with Facebook, but that’s probably because of my diverse range of  friends. I don’t get it as much on Twitter, but that may be due to the technology.

I get it elsewhere between real-life and the Internet. Polarisation of a kind started to set into the UniSA marketing some years back – the “students” on the UniSA website were getting whiter and whiter, and I ended up sending an email to the marketing crowd, pulling my hair out asking for some more Asians and Africans and anyone else needing representation in order to break down the homogeneity.

Odd as it may seem for a white guy, but in a large room full of just white guys, I can be made uncomfortable in a way that is alleviated through a blending of the demographic.

I’m not opposed to the criticism of religion through cartoons, and I think it’s possible to do it in intelligent, meaningful and even virtuous ways. That being said, why do all the Muslims in cartoons appear to be from the Middle East? Are the social commentators that provincial? Are they actually even criticising Islam, or just those from the Middle East and if so why?

I can feel the polarisation of the artists’ works tugging at me while I remained mired with empirical observations that Muslims are more diverse than this. Even that small subset that are terrorists are far more diverse.

I can feel the tide of the group shifting around me and I don’t like it. How much is acceptable and how much am I over-reacting? Is my sensitivity to this kind of thing for the best, even if it’s not always pleasant to be made aware of?

Group dynamics intrigue and annoy me. If you ever wonder why I may be a bit non-committal to this kind of thing, now you know why. I’m suspect that atheists aren’t special in this respect – that all in-groups with an online presence are subject to the same phenomena in one form or another. I’m not blaming atheism for this.

It can all just be a pain in the arse at times, is what I’m saying.

~ Bruce

P.S. And no, I’m not talking about anyone in particular. This post is the expression of the aggregation of my years of experience on the Internet with atheists. Still, if you do think I’m talking about you, I invite you to imagine that hypothetically I am – what would you say in response?

Let me preface this post with the acknowledgement that I do take issue with the way Richard Dawkins uses the phrase “Enlightenment values”, and other “Enemies of Reason” rhetoric.

Which Enlightenment values exactly? Empiricist or rationalist? Everyone seems to forget that philosophically these two camps were at each other’s throats, and that there has been no real closure of this dispute.

Social Darwinism, which contrary to much folk “wisdom”, Dawkins himself opposes*, is a set of Enlightenment values. Darwin rejected social Darwinism on the grounds that if done liberally, it couldn’t work because society wouldn’t mate according to a breeding plan, and if done illiberally, it would infringe upon his values – other Enlightenment values.

Just appealing to “Enlightenment values” alone, tells us little to nothing when there is a wide range of values from the Enlightenment to choose from.

Now that I’ve got that out-of-the-way, I’d like to address a post I’ve just read after seeing a tweet about it courtesy of @thewetmale.

The post is a planned talk by Dan Hind (author of The Threat to Reason) intended to be used at The Institute for Public Policy Research. The thrust of the post is that the concept of “The Enemies of Reason” can be used to blind us to the corruption of Enlightenment thought (said corruption apparently coming from the corporate end of the spectrum if the description of Hind’s book is to be believed).

Broadly, I can’t find much to disagree with in Hind’s conclusion – although this is seemingly a risk whenever a concept of The Enemy is deployed.

Someone has a critical disagreement in their interpretation of a philosophy, then points the finger at their interlocutor and calls them the enemy of the idea. When this happens in a campaign, groups tend to align and polarise.

This can happen irrespective of whether or not the critical disagreement warranted a schism or conflict in the first place. Groups tend towards this kind of dynamic, whether they are intellectual camps or football clubs. If the glare of rhetoric blinds us to the relative insignificance of the disagreement that spawned the conflict in the first place, we’re in trouble, and in as far as this applies to Hind’s argument, I agree.

But what if “The Enemy”, really is an enemy and what does an enemy of The Enlightenment look like anyway?

Despite my reservations about Dawkins’ use of “Enlightenment values” rhetoric, I think Hind makes three colossal mistakes in his treatment of Dawkins, et. el. In addition to rhetoric levelled at new-age woo and the post-modern, Dawkins et al. are taken to task for rhetoric directed at the religious.

“The atheist polemic of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens also distinguishes between the Enlightenment and it external enemies. The faithful are throwbacks to the counter-Enlightenment, they stand outside the Enlightenment and they seek to destroy it.”

(Dan Hind, 2008)

Neither Dawkins, nor Harris, nor Hitchens speak about “the faithful” in terms quite so general. Dawkins and Harris deal with the ideas of a large sub-set of the faithful, and perhaps while not describing their distinctions in entirely unproblematic fashion, they do make distinctions. Hitchens, in God is Not Great, notes numerous exceptions. Further, none of these critiques of religious thought (ideas) or religious institutions, are automatically synonymous with religious adherents (people) being enemies of Enlightenment thought.

I’ve read a lot of Dawkins, and I’m yet to read him say that believing in God makes you an opponent of reason. Dawkins’ argument has been that religious ideas and scientific ideas (and reason in general) are ultimately incompatible – not that people can’t hold mutually exclusive ideas to be true, or that being religious necessarily prevents you from holding down a job as a scientist.

This is Hind’s first mistake – in exaggerating the rhetoric of Dawkins et al., he is generating more of what he calls “the light that blinds”. Dawkins’ rhetoric, if you accept it is “blinding” us to the corruption of the Enlightenment, would be less blinding without Hind’s amplification.

The second error is in exaggerating to what degree the rhetoric is misplaced.

Take creationism. Specifically the case of The Discovery Institute, the motives of whom through the leaking of the Wedge Document, were made explicitly clear as opposed to modernity. You just can’t hang Intelligent Design off of any of The Enlightenment, and it’s because of this kind of incompatibility that it has been used aggressively as the political battering ram that it is.

Yes, no or maybe, is The Discovery Institute and enemy of The Enlightenment? I’m going to go with “yes”.

As broad as the political, cultural and scientific though arising out of The Enlightenment is, The Discovery Institute is positioned against all that is common amongst them. And similarity between the end products of Enlightenment thought, and the conclusions of creationists, is coincidental.

In light of the aims and deeds of The Discovery Institute, Hind’s claim that “The Enlightenment is not a city under siege”, isn’t even remotely convincing.

Hind would like us to see the corruption of Enlightenment values inherent in the Bush doctrine. I don’t disagree.

But to claim that drawing attention to the woo of alternative medicine is somehow a pesky distraction, is dangerously wrong. When alternative medicine enables a campaign that has and continues to kill more than 300,000 innocent people, it’s not so trivial. Sure, Iraq has killed more people, but does criticising the un-reasoned path to the woo that kills hundreds of thousands that incompatible with criticising a political doctrines that lead to war.

The same I think is true of the role of religion in the promotion of illiberal policies in Africa – Uganda’s draconian anti-gay legislation and Rwanda’s intended take up of the same kind of law. This has been politically motivated by religious organisations from the US. Is it unfair or incorrect to call these campaigners “Enemies of Reason”?

The corporations aren’t responsible for these other corruptions, and even if to some extent they distract from viewing corporate corruptions of enlightenment, is that really so great a price to pay? What gives religions and practitioners of woo this free pass? What makes corporations so bad that we have to pay attention to their antics at the expense of paying attention to anyone else? What is so bad about corporations and so minuscule about campaigns that exterminate the HIV positive and seek to lock up gays, that the latter is merely a distraction from the former?

And if it isn’t obvious enough already, Hind has an axe to grind and his closing rhetoric seems rather revealing.

“The struggle of our times is not between light and darkness. It is rather the struggle between illumination on the one hand and dazzlement on the other – the struggle between the use of rational methods to enlarge the province of human understanding, and the use of those same methods to manipulate and confuse in the service of tyrannical power. It is the light of the human spirit against the interrogator’s lamp.”

(Dan Hind, 2008)

This is his third, and I think most crucial mistake. Fresh from accusing Dawkins et al. of blinding rhetoric, Hind launches into blinding, polarising rhetoric of his own. Ask yourself, how is “in the service of tyrannical power” meaningfully different from “The Enemy of freedom”? How is Hind’s dichotomy between the light of the human spirit and the interrogator’s lamp, that different from “you are with us, or against us?”

In his defence against The Threat to Reason posed by the body corporate and other Others, Hind is deploying essentially the same rhetoric that he accuses others of using. Hind seems blinded by the glare of his own interrogator’s lamp.

Indeed, how else could you describe his comparison between Dawkins’ rhetoric of reason levelled against “the faithful”, and the Bush rhetoric that duped Americans into believing Iraq had a role in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It’s not a fair comparison, and in light of a lot of misinformation peddled about Dawkins and his criticisms of religion, potentially quite misleading. Very misleading.

If you aren’t familiar with Dawkins’ position on the Iraq war, read Hind’s blog post. Then read Dawkins’ article written on the eve of the Iraq War, where he says…

“Whatever anyone may say about weapons of mass destruction, or about Saddam’s savage brutality to his own people, the reason Bush can now get away with his war is that a sufficient number of Americans see it as revenge for 9/11.  This is not only bizarre. It is pure racism and/or religious prejudice, given that nobody has made even a faintly plausible case that Iraq had anything to do with the atrocity. It was Arabs that hit the World Trade Center, right?  So let’s go and kick Arab ass. Those 9/11 terrorists were Muslims, right? Right. And Iraqis are Muslims, right? Right. That does it.”

(Richard Dawkins, 2003)

It’s hardly reactionary, is it? And given that Hind raises the topic of the motivation for the Iraq war, it seems conspicuous by its absence. Maybe he didn’t see it for the glare of his own lamp.

~ Bruce

* Indeed, in part two of The Genius of Charles Darwin, Dawkins argues the merit of taxation and the welfare state, stating that it’s moral to pay taxes.

Update: Yes I know some of the values I’ve called “Enlightenment” values originate in the mid-19th century, and conventionally speaking the Enlightenment ends with Immanuel Kant – I think the waters were already muddied before I got here! We’re talking broadly about modernity here.

‘I recommend the work be read by skeptics and believers alike’ – Michael Shermer.

The value of this book can be summed up in one of its passages, which reveals a critical assumption that runs through the entire book.

“‘Science offeres the best answers to the meaning of life,” says Richard Dawkins. ‘Is there more to life that this?’, asks the evangelical Alpha Couse – and you know they are not going to say no.

The Atheists God

To be fair, there are some atheists who are not so sure. Julian Baggini is one. In his book, Atheism: a Very Short Introduction, he makes a rational case for not believing in God, or gods, not because he believes it is irrefutable nor because of some militant need to do so.”

(Mark Vernon, After Atheism, 2007)

So there you have it. Vernon takes an opinion given by Dawkins on the value of science from a 1996 Channel 4 interview, then from that tells us that Dawkins is sure that there is no God because in Vernon’s words, he believes it is irrefutable. It’s a stretch, even based on Vernon’s fanciful interpretation of a de-contextualised quote. But it gets worse.

In commenting on the rejection of (imagined) certainty of “militant” atheism from Baggini’s tome, Vernon states that…

“… Baggini is exceptional inadmitting such uncertainty.”

(Mark Vernon, After Atheism, 2007)

Except this is not even remotely true. Indeed, if Vernon had actually even bothered to pick up and read The God Delusion, which was printed before After Atheism, he would find that Dawkins himself admits such uncertainty (see Dawkins’ 6.5 on a scale of 1-7 where 7 is certainty – Dawkins thinks and has since repeatedly said that it’s a bad thing for a scientist to be certain about anything).

It’s not even rare amongst atheists in general. One only need have followed the weak-vs-strong atheism debate on alt.atheism, or paid actual attention to the arguments commonly levelled against belief, to see that they are not founded on certitude of any description. There is a reason for the bus slogan “There’s probably no God…” [Emphasis mine] – admittedly used after After Atheism, but entirely unsurprising for anyone who actually has some idea of what atheists tend to think (presumably not including Mark Vernon).

There are two important things to note about Vernon’s accusation of certitude – it is in most cases likely to be entirely wrong (as it is in the case of Dawkins), and it is levelled against vocal atheists in general. It’s nothing but a bigoted smear with the pretence of moderacy*.

I for one am glad Michael Shermer recommended this book. I’ve got a use for it. Others may regret spending their money on such a tome.

~ Bruce

* These allegations also bare a striking resemblance to the accusations of certainty levelled by conspiracy theorists against the IPCC on the topic of the human impact upon climate change; all despite the fact that the last IPCC report stated that human activity influenced climate at a confidence interval of 90% – which isn’t anything like “certain”.

Christmas. Solstice. Saturnalia. Hanukkah. Festivus. Whatever…

Really, it doesn’t bother me what you do. Okay, well Saturnalia maybe – they used to execute someone against their will on the last day of the festival. Don’t see that one working in a pluralistic society.

At any rate, unless you are inflicting suffering, I’m not going to tell you what to do for December the 25th. I find this whole “you shall worship him!” rubbish obscene – being told as if you’re a child refusing to eat your vegetables by some authoritarian with the emotional development of a brussel sprout.

It’s something that has pissed me off for a very long time.

Where it all began…

It was December one year in the late 1970s. ‘78 or ‘79. My family didn’t have much money then and even a small bag of mixed lollies was a luxury. The 70s were a hard time on a lot of people.

I didn’t think much of the idea of Santa Claus/Father Christmas. I always knew that it was a guy dressed up – nobody had ever tried to suggest otherwise.

I wasn’t offended by the idea of a fat man in a red suit dressing up to celebrate whatever it was that we were celebrating. All I wanted was to do my own thing.

It was night-time at the Gawler racecourse (pictured*). Some guy in a Father Christmas costume rolled up on the track, and the announcer gave notice that he had something for all the boys and girls. With little in the way of self-awareness, the kids rushed in Pavlovian fashion to receive their inducement from crypto-pagan, annual gift-giving man.

I didn’t. I was poor and the idea of being coerced by an appeal to my vulnerability just felt wrong. I didn’t have a concept of exploitation as such that I can remember. But the whole thing just viscerally offended me all the same.

Then the announcer guy tried talking me into participating, myself being half way between the stand and the racetrack. It just made me more convinced that there was something wrong about the whole thing – what on Earth made people think that just because a gaggle of pre-schoolers crawled over Father Christmas, that I was the same?

I stood my ground in the spotlights, despite the announcer’s apparent disappointment. He gave up, the kids got their lollies and Santa rolled off.

It was at that moment that I think I stopped giving automatic respect to my peers, having just watched them elbow and shove their fellow children with such abandon, just to cave in to some strange ritual the grown ups insisted we participate in. (Well, not all the grown-ups – I wasn’t induced to participate by my own parents – I suspect they were too ashamed to step forward into the lights and admit I was theirs.)

And the ritual! I wouldn’t give that automatic respect. Where was the justification?

I’d just live and let live and expect to be let live. My expectations haven’t changed.

Merry Whatevermas!

~ Bruce

* It’s been knocked down this year – I made the trip just in time to take a photo. Oddly enough, it looks like the house my parents had built in 1988 has just been burnt to the ground by the recent bushfire in Pt Lincoln (fortunately nobody has been killed – although what a holiday gift – cripes). Nothing stays around forever!

If you look down my sidebar, you’ll see a section on some of the kind words people have had for me on the blogosphere over the years. Nice stuff, really.

You will also notice at the time of writing, that while there is an entry for every year of my blogging prior (2005-2008), there isn’t a candidate for 2009. I’ve been meaning to post an insult of the year a “Words of kindness” competition for 2009, for you to nominate or enter a few words of kindness of your own, but I think now a chap calling himself “David Dolphin” may have stolen your thunder.

“And you are pussy footing around the topic.

I’m not sure if you don’t trust science or logic, but you seem like an idiot to me.”

(David Dolphin, 2009)

Because nothing says bravery, science and logic, more than an Internet tough-guy who posts huffy challenges containing logical fallacies* and no science whatsoever. Such kind words indeed.

I’ll leave it open until just after Christmas I think. If you lot can’t come up with any words of kindness nicer than David’s, then he’ll be the winner for 2009.

~ Bruce

* No True Scotsman fallacy: No definition for “a God character” was given, but “not a God character” was given as a rejection criteria; enabling responses to the challenge to be rejected on an ad hoc basis.

Back in March of this year, the ABC’s Compass hosted a documentary titled The Atheists. While not agreeing with all the atheists represented (who would? – “herding cats” and all that), I think it was a pretty reasonable job. Given the interviewees.

The point of this post comes from one of the comments made in the documentary by Phillip Adams. In commenting on Dawkins and Hitchens, he claimed that while he didn’t disagree with any of their points, it was their tone that he disagreed with -  a tone that “fanned the flames of intolerance” (I paraphrase).

Well, who could disagree with that? (Shut-up and sit down in the back there. Yes I mean you.)

Much has been made of Dawkins’ “strident” tone, and often in public speaking in response to these claims Dawkins presents  a passage of the best candidate for strident prose from The God Delusion. This best candidate is the opening of the chapter ‘The God Hypothesis’.

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

(The God Delusion, ‘The God Hypothesis’, Richard Dawkins, 2006)

The usual retort that Dawkins takes on tour goes that the passage was intended in jest, and that Dawkins thinks it’s actually quite funny. (If you laugh, I have a yard ruler with your backside’s name on it.)

Further to this, Dawkins has claimed that if it is strident, it’s only because of the source material he’s referring to (i.e. The Old Testament). Bah. Pish! Nothing of the sort. He’s just not reading the book right. It’s metaphor.

At any rate, like or hate his work, if there is any one candidate for Dawkins’ most strident, this is quite possibly it.

Now, here in front of me next to The God Delusion I have another candidate for “strident atheist” text. More Unspeakable Adams, by Phillip Adams (1981).

Much like Dawkins above quote, it was written and was intended to be read in good humour. Even if on the back cover, it jests about religious indignation.

“LAST DESPERATE OFFER! A limited edition of the book, soaked in kerosene, is available for outraged religious organisations. Bulk orders only.”

(More Unspeakable Adams, Phillip Adams, 1981)

Because we all know how religious organisations can become incensed at the slightest, fairest criticism. Indignation with wailing and gnashing of teeth and all that. Hardly a strident observation.

Let’s see, as with Dawkins, if we can’t quote mine a most-strident-passage from More Unspeakable Adams.

“Lassie’s saintliness recalls the arguments I’d have with our religious instruction teacher, who regarded my insistence on her having a soul as blasphemy. But I knew she did, that she must, and that if there were a heaven and heavenly justice, she’d have to share in immortality… ‘God is dog backwards,’ offered Graeme Wrigley helpfully, only to earn instant excommunication from the class.”

Aghast! The horror! Aiieee! Strident!

Okay. Most of the book only has material that makes tangential reference to religion, as offensive as some of the content may be to religious prudes. Quote mining a lot of it to make it sound strident would require quite a bit of bad faith. I wouldn’t want you to mistake me for a creationist.

But forget strident anyway. What about fanning those flames of…. Oh wait. What’s this? ‘When God was Irish and Dr Mannix his deputy.’

That’s got to have potential.

“One of the great pleasures of a newspaper column is the mail it provokes. The unsigned obscenities, the death threats…”

Even without the Internet, it seems Adams can whip up the hatred as well as that dastardly PZ Myers!

“Fascinated by this revelation, I wrote back (‘Dear Mr Christ, I was most interested …’) seeking further details. This led to a flood of over 100 letters, each more deranged in its misogyny… Unfortunately Mr Christ also detailed his plans to murder some Sydney matrons, so I was forced to get in touch with a psychiatric service sponsored by the Presbyterian Church.”

Shrill! Intolerant! Flashing lights! Babies in peril!1!!

In the same league as Dawkins’-Most-Strident-Passage, don’t you think? But maybe you aren’t convinced. Yet.

Reading further, Adams provides “a glossary of terms used in convent schools in the 1950s’.”

“Body, The: Did not exist except for Breasts (q.v.). A protestant delusion.
Breasts: Sister could not mention them without going red. It was a mortal sin if they showed.”

Intolerant! Flames! Air-raid siren! Gngggggg!!!

“God: The senior male Catholic. Of Irish extraction. Definitely not Italian. Ranked above Archbishop Mannix.”

You can’t imply they’re racist! Next you’ll be calling them paedophile-lovers! Intolera-ra-ra-ra-ra-ra-RAGE!

“Hell: For Jews and other pagans, including most Protestants. Also for Catholic girls who did not believe what the priests told them.”

What would Catholic girl, Madeleine Bunting think? BIGOTRY!

“Proddy dogs: State school children of both sexes. God did not love them enough to make them Catholics.”

…

Well, that’s all I need to see! Case closed! He may talk all tolerant, but never forget; Phillip Adams is a card-carrying, religiously bigoted member of the New Atheist Internationale! (The book has “communism” written in it!)

Disagree with “fanning the flames of intolerance”, indeed!

~ Bruce

The past couple of weeks has seen an appalling state of affairs in the developed world, in response to Uganda’s planned bill which enables…

1. The incarceration of homosexuals, just for being gay.
2. The incarceration of people who don’t report homosexuals.
3. The extermination of incarcerated homosexuals found to be HIV positive.

I’m not being hyperbolic. This is what the proposed law sets out to achieve.

So you would think that this is a no-brainer. That international pressure would be well measured, but not timid. If you thought that, you would be wrong.

First, a little background.

This has been in the making for a long time now. Homophobic sentiment has been on the rise in Uganda – particularly that pushed by the Anglican Church of Uganda. Although they aren’t so bold about their position. For example…

“The Church of Uganda is studying the proposed “Anti-homosexuality bill” and, therefore, does not yet have an official position on the bill.”

(Canon Aaron Mwesigye – Prov. Secretary of the Church of Uganda, Nov 2009)

A bill that talks about the incarceration and execution of gays, and they don’t have an official position and refuse to have one drawn out of them. It must be so very hard for them.

I wonder how long they would take to release an official policy response if a bill enabling the execution of heterosexuals for being heterosexual, was being discussed. Would they drag their feet then?

The Church of Uganda has had a bee in its bonnet over gay people for a while now. Particularly the ordination of homosexuals – hence a boycott of a major Anglican conference last year, which perennial bigot Rick Warren was quick to support. Indeed, Rick Warren seems to have a strong association with homophobia in Uganda, as it seems have a number of waylaid US “faith based” aid projects.

On the genocide bill, Rick Warren has finally, after much avoidance, given a disingenuous condemnation – perhaps he is conflicted over his Purpose Driven Life rubbish that he’s been pushing in Uganda. If you’re in the mega-church business like Rick, you don’t want to alienate the clients flock gulls sheep or whatever.

And to think, atheists have been accused of being intolerant for complaining about Obama’s appointment of Rick Warren to give the inauguration at his inauguration. An appointment naively calculated to help bridge a divide between left and right-wing evangelicals, but ultimately enabling Warren’s long-standing bigotry.

And speaking of compromising your principles to extend your hand in good faith to people who won’t return the favour, it’s not just religion US style that has this problem

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, a man even Richard Dawkins has called saintly, has been morally compromised by this whole schism. Between his own, usually more inclusive views on gay rights, and the needs of real politik, he’s been doing quite the juggling act.

“While her long résumé as a beloved parish priest and skilled church administrator who has worked both north and south of the Mason-Dixon line is impressive, it’s Glasspool’s lesbianism that made her an international news item. Conservative Episcopalians and Anglicans, who oppose the ordination of women and homosexuals, wasted no time in denouncing Glasspool’s election. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, said her election “raises serious questions” for the Anglican Communion and urged the Episcopalian bishops not to seat her for the sake of unity.”

(Jeanne Carstensen, 2009)

It’s hardly a Dawkinsian response, is it? Just look at what Dawkins had to say when The Pope invited the Anglican Church’s patriarchal homophobes back into the Catholic Church.

“What major institution most deserves the title of greatest force for evil in the world? In a field of stiff competition, the Roman Catholic Church is surely up there among the leaders. The Anglican church has at least a few shreds of decency, traces of kindness and humanity… a generosity of spirit, of respect for women, and of Christ-like compassion for the less fortunate. The Anglican church does not cleave to the dotty idea that a priest, by blessing bread and wine, can transform it literally into a cannibal feast; nor to the nastier idea that possession of testicles is an essential qualification to perform the rite… Whether one agrees with him or not, there is a saintly quality in the Archbishop of Canterbury… How does Pope Ratzinger measure up? The comparison is almost embarrassing.”

(Richard Dawkins, 2009)

Ouch. Y’know, if I were a little more light-headed, I’d be wondering if Dawkins and Williams (who do have an ongoing association) had a “Good Cop/Bad Cop” arrangement going on. “If you leave the Fellowship, I’m not going to be able to protect you from him. He’s outta control!” Maybe they should call him Williams’ Bulldog.

Wishful thinking perhaps. The Archbishop of Canterbury is doing a fine job getting his priorities wrong on this one.

And when you consider there are more than a few supporters of the bill campaigning in the US, it seems to be becoming increasingly apparent that a softly-softly approach isn’t going to work. We are dealing with a severely messed up policy, so messed up that would likely even make many-if-not-most right-wing evangelicals in the US quite uncomfortable, and we are talking about supporters that don’t want to engage in a meaningful, honest discourse – they’ll do what they want if they think they can get away with it.

There is a warning in all of this. Moderates who view harsh criticism as intolerance, who either embrace or at least court relativism, neuter their capacity to engage extreme, genuine intolerance. Even Rowan Williams doesn’t fall this far yet look how much trouble he’s having.

Are you one of those self-styled moderates?

Sure, call yourself a moderate atheist (aren’t most anyway?) or a moderate theist, but don’t whine that just because someone takes a stand or makes a strong criticism, it renders them an intolerant fundamentalist. That’s rubbish. Look to Uganda if you want to see intolerant fundamentalism in action.

And if you can’t do that, please at least stay out-of-the-way of the people who actually care about human rights, and stop enabling actual fundamentalist bigots. Don’t worry, you’ll be left in peace – the scary human rights people aren’t going to bother you.

Let us be the “Bad Cop” to your “Good Cop” if it makes you feel any better.

~ Bruce

Seriously.

“HIDE THE DECLINE! HIDE THE DECLINE! HIDE THE DECLINE!”

I paraphrase of course, but that’s the pap you keep hearing. It was a misquote to begin with to assert that the decline being hidden was a decline in actual atmospheric temperature. The actual decline was one wrongly inferred by a proxy (tree rings) which stopped giving an accurate after 1960, inferred temperatures becoming increasingly contradictory with known, direct measures. Hence, the portion of the data that was hidden was data in error, and was substituted with more reliable, direct temperature readings.

There is nothing untoward about it.

Yet the misquoting of this particular passage is very telling. It’s been weeks since the emails were hacked and leaked. Weeks.

Weeks for the denialists to mine further for quotes. Yet they are still using the same mis-quotes they were using weeks ago. Heck, even Sarah Palin is being given mainstream media coverage in order to prattle the “HIDE THE DECLINE!” meme.

It’s a pretty reliable indicator that they haven’t found anything of substance and that we can safely dismiss the hysterics. Most of the hysterics anyway.

Karl Popper noted how conspiracy theories often form the basis of propaganda used to advance campaigns of intolerance, and it would seem that at least potions of the denialist-conspiricist movement are acting to form.

Denialist Andrew Breitbart is calling for the execution of scientists allegedly involved in “climategate”, and even others just for criticising him for being so stupid. And of course, those lovely denialist denizens of the Internet have started up with the inevitable hate mail and death threats.

“Whaaa! Persecution! They aren’t printing us in peer-reviewed journals!” Hardly compares really, does it?

I think from all of this we can quite fairly make an assertion about the denialist movement. With its epistemological propensity for infallible, unfalsifiable conspiricism and an anti-intellectual intolerance of differing scientific opinion, we can safely call it a cult.

~ Bruce

Okay. I’ve got a bit of a preliminary project going on the side here, which at this point I won’t disclose openly what it is exactly, just yet.

Suffice to say that there are a few case studies of anti-atheist bigotry that I have to take into account, and some of them come in book form.

One you’ve possibly seen me cite, that I’ve had limited access to, has been Tina Beattie’s execrable The New Atheists (2008). Which is little more than string of straw men sewn together with a spine.

Ironic in it’s tar-and-feathering of an outgroup, considering that Beattie writes for Open Democracy on the issues of natural law and human rights.

My project will require a more robust and in-depth dissection than I have had the opportunity to undertake. For which I’ll need my own copy. A good thing it goes out for cheap.

The irony becomes more apparent when you realise just how unoriginal Beattie’s thesis actually is – those intolerant atheists with their scientific certainty are out to erode religious rights in order to ultimately install a totalitarian, godless utopia!

Of course, the only people finding intolerant utopianism in a “New Atheist” book are those theist critics who perhaps only unwittingly, find such contorted representations convenient. And seemingly the only time they can cite “evidence” for such a conspiracy, is when they can quote mine things out of context. Much like the denialists currently milking the hacked East Anglia emails.

As unflattering as the comparison is, I don’t think it unfair to compare the likes of Beattie to others who uncritically parrot out-grouping memes and conspiricist misquotes. The irony in apparently left-leaning, critical theorist, Tina Beattie’s parroting of the “New Atheist” meme, is made obvious by the next book on my list.

The New Atheism and The Erosion of Freedom, by Robert A. Morey (1986).

Like Beattie, Morey battled against a new breed of atheism that unlike old atheism, didn’t know it’s place, spoke out of turn, was intolerant and planned to rob everyone of their religious rights in order, ultimately with the aim to install a godless utopia. Like Beattie and like the denialists misquoting the East Anglia emails, Morey, in support of a conspiricist line of argument, misquoted liberally.

Ironic, how similar the two are, given Beattie’s pretence to progressive religious tolerance and Morey’s championing of the notion that Mecca and Medina should be nuked. But I want to be more rigorous if I’m going to try to explain the similarities by venturing a hypothesis I have in mind, and for that I’ll need my own copy ready on my bookshelf.

There is of course, the obvious question which also needs to be asked – what on Earth lead people like Beattie to claim that their pet-hate-atheists were new, when this has all been seen and exaggerated and lied about before? I suspect it’s got something to do with the notion that a new “threat”, unlike something that has always been around, is more frightening and thus more instrumental in forming or facilitating out-group biases.

~ Bruce

I’ve recently declared my interest in a post-grad writing qualification, and the possibility of doing it in 2011. How’s this for a change of plans?

Pushing it back to starting between 2013 and 2015.

It would seem far more manageable financially for one, which is always good. I used to view study-in-poverty as an endurable, if not necessary evil for Uni students from a working class background. Of course, if I got a bit more money behind me before returning to Uni, it’d be less stressful – which would be conducive to a nice writing environment.

That and I’ve struck upon an idea. Trying to get something published before returning to study, rather than afterward. Something book-sized, perhaps.

I’ve got an Aunty who I’ve been planning to spend a bit more time with again, who happens to have published her second book this year. I haven’t even managed to have a chat to her about my plans as of yet, but I’ll have to. That and drop off a pot-plant I’ve been planning to. And have a chin-wag about my joining SA Writers.

Of course, that would alter my blogging plans somewhat, potentially extending them. And for some reason, this excites me.

So there you go. The master plan isn’t set in stone yet. And I’ve still got to get a better mouse.

~ Bruce

I can’t tell you how good it feels to know that my degree is over, although I suspect that it hasn’t all hit me quite yet.

It was good a couple of weeks ago when I got the final exam of my final subject out-of-the-way. And although I didn’t have a grade at the time, I resolved to be confident.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if I did a bit better than average. In fact I wouldn’t be entirely surprised if I did quite well… So I’m going to stop worrying about it. And maybe celebrate. The rest should all be a formality and I’ll have my parchment in about April of next year. Unless for some reason I really goofed the exam – which I rather doubt.”

Of course resolving to be confident, and having nagging fears, aren’t incompatible. You can simply resolve and fail by worrying anyway.

I didn’t soil my pants, but to tell the truth, I wasn’t supremely confident. Indeed, if I didn’t show my worries in my waking hours, my worries wound up in my dreams. Dreams where I’d forget about assessment tasks in other subjects (which I hadn’t even enrolled in), miss the due dates, fail and get booted out of Uni. Then there’s the re-occurring dream of this sort, that I’ve had for the last fifteen or so years – failing because I haven’t handed in assignments for year twelve Accounting. Which incidentally, I passed back in the day.

It probably hasn’t helped that over the years, particularly during school, but occasionally even during Uni, I’ve had a few tutors/lecturers/teachers at least implicitly express low expectations for me, presumably due to my working class affectations. More specifically, my “degenerate boy” expectations. It’s not merely a suspicion, really. At high school I had a teacher take me aside an apologise to me for stereotyping me, which became apparent to him when I did better than most students in an exam – despite my being too laid back.

Another repeated incident is when I start talking about something above and beyond the course material. “You read [insert author or material]?”, with shock expressed that I’m even familiar with the topic or author. It happened at Uni a couple of times and it has been happening even since my days in junior high school – a teacher in detention being surprised that I could peel off the opcodes for the Z80 processor, along with a number of the 8086 equivalents (most of which I’ve long since forgotten) – assumptions which were cast aside by all but one (insecure) teacher when I showed the head of faculty how to reverse engineer some pretty pathetic encryption, and the portion of memory wherein passwords were stored for the school’s PC network*.

When you’re not middle class enough, you really have to work to get some recognition that you’re not a lost cause, and if you aren’t careful you can wind up doubting yourself a bit too much.

At any rate, back on the topic of Uni being over – I shouldn’t have worried at all. My weird dreams were unfounded. I could have been supremely confident – I got a high distinction, which is as high a grade as you can get.

And now my undergrad days are finally over, bar the final paperwork. Though I’m still not going to wear that silly hat and robe. Blech.

~ Bruce

* Some students had locked everyone out of using a number of the computers, which this resolved.

I think that sums up my goal quite nicely actually. It’s a means to an end of course (that being writing), but I think it groups together a bundle of other means and stops me from conflating them with my end.

I’ve been looking at courses. Specifically, the MA (Creative Writing) at the University of Adelaide. That’s not an end – it’s a means.

You have to pass through two lesser graduate qualifications with a distinction average in order to get into the MA, and I’m thinking of applying for the first of those lesser qualifications next year – to study in 2011.

My thoughts have until now have been that I’d need to get myself prepared for study. Which while true, I think is a little wrong-headed.

For a start, writing is the end goal and it’s a better goal than a mere credentialist one. One aims for a masters like this in order to facilitate being a writer. I’d be barmy to treat a post-grad qualification as an end-game.

Hence, what I previously viewed as preparation for study, should really be viewed as preparation for writing – the study being one of those preparations. I just have preparations to make before returning to study is all.

I’m not sure how I like writing at this desk of mine. It’s not the worst. Maybe I need a better chair.

I need a better mouse and my software isn’t something I’m entirely comfortable with.

Early on in The Little Red Writing Book (thanks again Neil), Mark Tredinnick tells us that…

“Because writing takes longer to perform than speaking, we have time to worry. Into the gaps between the letters and the words, into the void of the blank screen, anxiety floods. And anxiety, as Barry Lopez once said, makes us all inarticulate… The gaggle of anxieties can induce panic. And panic makes for bad prose.”

(Tredinnick, The Little Red Writing Book, 2006)

I’m not sure anxiety is the issue. I’m no angsty teen. Stress as a feeling and perhaps panic as a behaviour would be more like it. I’m more prone to frustration.

That and an excess consumption of caffeine with a time-constraint-fuelled, lax proofing practice. It challenges whatever passion I have for writing, and if not that, it at least places a limitation on what I’m capable of.

During the time I has set aside for blogging yesterday, I had difficulty writing. Having a love affair with a Kilimanjaro dark roast from the Central Markets, I made it a bit strong and even with my fingers hovering just above the keys there was a light tatta-tatta-tatta. Blogs are prone to lax editorial process and are particularly spontaneous, which makes me suspect that I’ve been blogging through my caffeine addiction like a spider weaving its web under similar influence.

I don’t have time to work on my web, I’M TYPING!!!

I won’t be abandoning my love of coffee, I’ll just have to learn how to make it, and control my consumption better.

As part of the changes next year on this blog, I think I’ll gradually implement a more substantial editorial cycle. Better proofing. As a means to two ends – I’ll have to prepare a portfolio, some of which I intend to blog, and even if I don’t go ahead with the post-grad study it’ll probably do me some good as a writer anyway.

I can hear R telling me to just relax. I am relaxed. I want to do this. (As a concession, I won’t proof this post properly.)

So ergonomics, pharmacology, a portfolio and the phasing in of a proofing policy. I think that’s a start. Towards possible future study, towards the greater goal, or even just to enjoy the process, these way-points remain common.

But this is just the basics. There will be life changes, if subtle.

And on a more trivial note, I haven’t even considered things like a Newton’s Cradle or some goldfish near my desk.

Or a nice plant actually. I’ve got no indoor plants in this room come to think of it.

What do you writer-type people have around your computer to help manage stress and produce an atmosphere conducive to writing?

~ Bruce

Update: Thanks to R for this software suggestion. Looks interesting. BUT IT’S FOR MAC!!! BLARGH! (Stress!)

I’ve had “spot the epistemology pun…” as a subtitle on my blog for a few months now, and sadly, only one stab in its general direction has been made. Which I guess is to be expected considering I didn’t exactly draw the challenge to people’s attention.

Never mind. There was no first prize, no booby prize and I’m ending the challenge as of now.

The pun in question was contained, not too subtly in the title bar above – the black swan. The photo is taken along the Torrens River in Adelaide, just a few minutes downstream from where I spent time reading The God Delusion (a few times over) and more recently, Breaking The Spell. The precise spot where the photo was taken can be seen from the Uni of Adelaide bridge in the top of these two photos by Stephen Clark.

Adelaide can be a wonderful place to live, even if not always adventurous in a cosmopolitan fashion.

But I digress. Back to the epistemology pun.

The Black Swan  – Nassim Nicholas Taleb (2007)

I finally forked out for it a couple of months ago, after a discussion with Nullifidian on Twitter. The book starts out in the prologue with…

“Before the discovery of Australia, people in the Old World were convinced that all swans were white, and unassailable belief as it seemed completely confirmed by empirical evidence. The sighting of the first black swan might have been an interesting surprise for a few ornithologists… but that isn’t where the significance of the story lies. It illustrates a severe limitation to our learning from observations or experience and the fragility of our knowledge. One single observation can invalidate a general statement derived from millennia of confirmatory sightings of millions of white swans.”

(‘The Black Swan’, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, 2007)

Taleb goes on to accuse black swans of being ugly. An assertion which I have to disagree with. But that’s besides the point – The Black Swan is a book about the application of a more or less falsificationist epistemology within various practical settings, particularly economic. The chapter on the ‘The Scandal of Prediction’, I am hoping, will have something to say about the Global Financial Crisis, even if not explicitly. Indeed, I’m looking forward to finally getting around to reading it at all (NEED MORE TIME!)

If all this talk of falsification seems too nihilistic for you, before you pull your hair out I’ll send you off in another direction. PZ Myers has recently posted a piece of wisdom by Isaac Asimov that would seem entirely appropriate and relevant. It’s well worth reading, even if the idea of the black swan doesn’t freak you out.

Maybe I’ll migrate my Asimov collection closer to my Poppers. Although my Kuhn is already sitting next to the Poppers and it’s looking a bit volatile.

~ Bruce

I recently confessed that while I rather deeply loathe the politics of Tony Abbott, I somewhat like the guy. Essentially because of his tendency to take it on the chin, rather than kick up a hissy fit in the same way that all of his predecessors since… Well since I was too young to notice them not having hissy fits.

If I ever felt guilty that my criticism and fun poking at Abbott’s expense was on occasion a tad much, the idea that Abbott would be able to take it in his stride, or even with a laugh, absolved me of that guilt.

Bernard Keane seems to have had something similar in mind, but is now wavering on that opinion.

“One allegation I’d never thought I’d make about Tony Abbott is that of being a sook… Which meant it was a bit odd yesterday when, being interviewed by Laurie Oakes for the first time as Opposition leader, Abbott got upset about being asked his views on evolution. Abbott responded by demanding to know why Oakes had never asked Kevin Rudd the same question.”

(Bernard Keane, 2009)

I never saw the interview, and while it’s obvious that Abbott is evading a question, I don’t think that Abbott raises an unfair point – nor can I tell, at least from the medium Keane writes in, if Tony was being a bit of a sook or not. Based on past performance I can envisage him dodging the question with these very words without breaking into the crybaby mode that has become a hallmark of Liberal leaders.

Still, he’s under new pressures. Maybe the Liberal leadership makes all Liberal leaders into crybabys. I’ll give Abbott the benefit of the doubt on this for now.

So, should Abbott’s religious views be fair game for journalistic scrutiny? As far as they influence policy, as with anything about him that materially influences policy, the electorate has a right to know. Keane points out that people are shocked to find out that Turnbull is Catholic (I’m not), and you can take from his political track record that whatever his personal religious views are, they don’t influence policy the same way that Abbott’s do. Hence, I think it legitimate to apply more scrutiny to Abbott’s religious views, than to Turnbull’s.

That they are Catholic views, as opposed to Muslim, Unitarian or Pentecostal, matters not a dot. Abbott’s religious views are fair game.

I think Keane makes one serious mistake in his piece though, and I think he exaggerates the disingenuous nature of Abbott’s dodging in doing so. Along the way giving Kevin Rudd a free kick.

“Abbott’s complaint that Rudd is not asked the same question is disingenuous. Rudd might be a socially conservative Christian but does not use his public office to impose his religious views.”

(Bernard Keane, 2009)

Keane follows through with an examples of policy motivated by religious conservatism, that has been rolled back under Rudd – foreign aid for abortions. The problem though, is that the approach to debate taken needn’t necessarily have conflicted with Rudd’s religion at all – not all socially conservative Christians are as conservative as each other, nor is there an absolute consensus on any particular point, nor the ways to achieve them.

For example, there are Christians in the US who oppose abortion, but think the best way to oppose it is to provide welfare and education in order to prevent unplanned pregnancies, not to ban the funding of abortions. And it’s often these same Christians who campaign more for a dialogue, than for didacticism – and they undertake this political approach from a religious motivation.

This moderation is an integral part of their religious beliefs, not a sign that they are surrendering a portion of their faith to a secular world in return for some influence. To quote Darth Vader, “there is no conflict.”

I believe it is the same for Kevin Rudd, on this issue (as with many others).

But what of another issue that Keane misses altogether? Say, gay marriage. On this issue, we have a very different Rudd. While the Rudd Government has increased some rights for gay couples (along with the Orwellian extension of social security “rights” to gay couples), this isn’t to say that Rudd is surrendering a thing. Are these increased rights, short of gay marriage, in conflict with Rudd’s belief? I rather doubt it.

And in as far as they do conflict, what then? When it comes to the idea of fully fledged gay marriage, Rudd is quite the religious didact. His religious position entirely informs, and determines, his policy position – which is to say that he opposes gay marriage. How is this different to the way that Abbott opposes Medicare funding for abortions? There are differences in the details, but not in any way that would mitigate against either being at odds with the principal of the separation of church and state.

Which brings us back to Abbott’s complaint. Which as far as I can see, is only flawed in as far as Rudd already being scrutinised. Why should Laurie Oakes ask the PM if he leans toward creationism if it’s already known that on this particular issue, it’s a non-issue.

Perhaps Oakes could ask the more controversial do you think evolution has anything to say about human nature? Of course, you could ask everyone in parliament about that, because it’s still contentious even amongst many atheists as well as every religion represented in parliament. Or perhaps Oakes could ask about the funding of the teaching of Intelligent Design in private schools, which is still a current issue that hasn’t been discussed to resolution.

But again, even on that issue, you could ask anyone in parliament. It’s the asking of specific politicians, where specific policies conflict with specific religious convictions that’s the issue – and it’s something that shouldn’t be taboo, if you’re asking Abbott or if you’re asking Rudd. Where such conflict exists, the electorate have a right to know and politicians an obligation to be open.

~ Bruce

Okay. I’ve had the occasional “pfft, theologians” here and there lately. Not entirely without reason, but with a fair portion of intentional cheek.

The last post I wrote, can be taken a couple of different ways. It needn’t condemn all theologians, and indeed, I suspect that some may sympathise in some regard. Maybe some of the virtue epistemologists would get what I’m on about. (Although I’ve seen one grad-student, virtue epistemologist, recently uncritically parrot some pretty shameful straw men of Dawkins et al – which kind of breaks with the virtues they claimed to uphold.)

Of course, it all depends on what you call a theologian. I’ve never really tied myself down to a particular definition. Out of some kind of respect for people to define their own identities, I’ve held back. Somewhat.

John mentioned a criteria in a past discussion – theology is study that presupposes the existence of God. With this criteria, if you roll God over, you don’t have to deal with theology. Which I think is true for at least a lot of it. Which is why I won’t address a lot of it – I don’t think I have to.

But… Not everyone who calls themselves a theologian could be called one according to this definition. John Shelby Spong’s non-theistic (atheistic?) approach to Christian culture would seem to be poorly described by it. A lot of what passes for theology classes, wouldn’t be out-of-place in cultural studies, literary theory, art theory, music theory and so on – clearly some of the content can be considered viable if God does or doesn’t exist.

Of course, that doesn’t make it accurate to automatically describe the work of the Spongs and the literary theorists, as theology. I’m trying to treat carefully here, to be fair.

Still, nailing my argument to the mast somewhat, I’m tentatively going to define theologians as people who study within a traditionally religious culture, that self-identify as theologians. Define for the purpose of the blog. Please, if there are any aggrieved theologians reading this, please don’t think I’m trying to reduce you to pure logic.

So. What do I think of these people?

In as far as their disciplines can be sustained without the presumption of God, I can’t see any reason not to show the same respect I’d be showing anyone else with similar qualifications in the field. Perhaps ultimately, I’d prefer to call the likes of Spong and Kierkegaard, philosophers. Even without God, these two aren’t irrelevant to humanist thought. And the same can be said of the makers of beautiful music, and if I was into poetry, that as well.

As for theologians who ask me to presuppose God before a discussion about God’s existence – well that’s just admitting to having to lie and the debate’s over before it begins. As for those who misrepresent Kant’s objection to ontological arguments*, then try to pass of ontological arguments for God’s existence, well, I’m not buying it. Any variation on this kind of chicanery won’t earn my respect.

I won’t necessarily completely write off the theologian in question who peddles this fluff, especially if they have some other area of expertise. But it does try the patience, and erode one’s trust when someone keeps trying to sell them the intellectual equivalent of a car from dodgy brothers.

So there you go. If you want to consider that a prejudice, it’s not much of a prejudice, but feel free. At least you know where I stand.

~ Bruce

* The two common tricks I’ve found in misrepresenting Kant’s objection found in the Critique of Pure Reason, are to a) misconstrue Kant’s objection as being merely linguistic, then changing the wording used in an ontologial argument so supposedly make it immune, and b) pretending that Kant’s objection to ontological proofs was specific only to those of philosophers such as Descartes, rather than a general epistemological objection to ontological proofs.

There is an additional favourite of mine – avoiding Kant’s criteria that existence can’t be a predicate by starting out with God’s non-existence, have another negative in the equation, then have the two negatives cancel out to arrive at the same conclusion as a “proof” that treats existence as a predicate. Of course, with the double negative cancelling out, you’re obvious still treating existence as a predicate – and it’s not as if non-existence is a predicate either, anyway.

You’ve probably heard it before. Sometimes as a legitimate response.

A dismissive, potentially patronising rejoinder. “That’s very clever” comes the sarcastic reply to something that, if the rejoinder rings true, shouldn’t be particularly clever at all.

Red herrings, like picking up on typos without addressing the points one attempts to criticise. That’s very clever.

The student who disrupts a class to raise a valid point in an attempt to “pwn” the lecturer, while not actually addressing the content of the class. That’s very clever.

The problem though, it seems to me, is that the rejoinder rarely ever seems to hit home. Often being delivered by some pretentious type, who thanks to something along the lines of the Dunning-Krueger effect, has delusions of intelligentsia. An excuse dressed up as a rejoinder in lieu of a more honest “you’re right” or a simple, epistemologically meek “I don’t know how to respond to that.”

What’s wrong with these milder kinds of replies? I don’t know!

“That’s very clever…” comes with a few siblings. To paraphrase, “the argument of an intelligent schoolboy…”, or “that’s a neat trick, but it lacks the sophistication of blah, blah, blah-blah blah…”, are a couple.

Take the rather obvious observation made in The God Delusion – “if God made the Universe, who made God?” It sounds like a child’s question and a lot of children have asked it (without answer). And the amount of times you see the question batted away by “that’s very clever” and its close relations!

But it’s not a bad question at all. God is still argued quite widely to be The Prime Mover? By what mechanism? We aren’t told. By those standards, why then don’t we simply counter-assert without mechanism, that the Universe itself, like the hypothetical God, is self-spawning. By the same standard, this assertion would be similar in all meaningful respects except for one – it has the benefit of parsimony, which acts as a tie breaker if you’re going to philosophise about God (or lack thereof) in any honest fashion.

If you’re really lucky. Really, really lucky. You’ll be furnished with the argument that some theologian dealt with this question ages ago, and that you’re ignorant for not knowing it. Tisk, you fool!

But this is a dodge as well. Why then do they never seem to provide a citation and discussion of this small rejoinder? I’m sure many theologians have attempted to rebut the question, that’s not the point. And maybe there is a black swan out there to my argument – a theologian that can actually rebut the question in a satisfactory manner. But based on what you’re usually given, you can no more scrutinise the alleged theological argument, than you can scrutinise an alleged conversation on a mountain top between Moses and God.

The risk seems to be for them, that if they do provide you with a counter argument to “who made God?”, you’ll analyse their response and say something else very clever.

It should be taken as flattery I think, if only unintentional. You have a self-identifying cultured theist, whining petulantly and evading, simply because you can make an observation a five-year old is capable of. If they’re going to be so paternalistic, why not give you a right lecturing – citing the name of the theologian and presenting the argument for your (apparently, obviously lacking) education? Alluding to some unnamed (or sometimes named) theologian and simply claiming that they came to a conclusion that contradicts yours, is no rejoinder at all. Why argue like this?

Again, we’ve already covered the likely motive – you may say something else very clever. Best to keep the meat of the argument well away. (Which if you ask me, judging by what I keep hearing the theologically inclined argue, this seems to be what theology is actually about – setting up rigged epistemological escape routes so as to be able to avoid scrutiny of one’s dearly held beliefs – which would be fine if we didn’t all have to live with the consequences of so many of said dearly held beliefs.)

Now you don’t have to get up in a fuss about this. Not really. You don’t even have to see it as intellectual cowardice, even though that seems to present itself as a worthy explanation. No.

Take this trite crybabyism as a kind of begrudging respect. The way a student whines about a mean old lecturer who marks down their assignment after a point-by-point series of objections. A student that doesn’t want to go through it yet again.

And why not?

There are undergrads and postgrads and professors of theology. But few of these scholars seem rightly able to be accorded the respect, nor the theological authority, nor the recognition for sheer honesty of the learned art’s greatest qualification – the ability to think like a five year old!

~ Bruce