The New Atheism

This is something I've been meaning to say for a while, something that riles me more than almost anything: The myth of "New Atheism".

I fail to see just how there can be a "New Atheism". Atheism is the same as it has always been, namely, a lack of belief in God and, subsequently, a distancing of oneself from any religious organisation. That's it. What people mean when they say "New Atheism" is "more atheists", or perhaps "more vocal atheists". I don't see why this is such a problem – people have been expressing faith far more vocally for years.

And then you get to the big points: Atheism is a religion as bad as any other, and Richard Dawkins is its leader. And they're all smug.

writerJames wrote a brilliant piece about that "smug" notice, but suffice it to say that most commentators using that term are not being awfully humble themselves. You can basically describe anybody who has an opinion that they feel strongly enough about to voice as “smug”, and so it just becomes a convenient way to belittle an argument without going through the exhausting process of actually conveying a rational argument. I think the Pope is unbearably smug, but that doesn’t render his arguments invalid (there are far more things that do that).

The issue of Richard Dawkins is curious as well. A very important point to make right now would be that DAWKINS IS NOT ATHEISM. Dawkins is an atheist. This would be (I would have thought) a pretty obvious distinction, were it not for the fact that so few people seem to be able to make it. I hold Dawkins in very high esteem, but he is not my Pope. I do not feel compelled to agree with him because he is a representative for a perfect being. In many ways, he is more similar to an actor or musician – I enjoy his work, but were he to suddenly offer opinions that I continually disagreed with I would feel no more compelled to stay with him than I was with “Heroes”.

It seems to me that people outside of atheism are more obsessed with Dawkins than those within. Perhaps that is doing them an injustice, but he is undeniably the go-to guy whenever an atheist story drops. The Atheist Bus campaign and the idea of arresting the Pope were all attributed to him simply because when the ideas arose, journalists went to him asking if he approved. Any hint that he did resulted in them becoming Dawkins’s plans.

Things reached a nadir when Stephen Fry was accused of leading an “Atheist Hate Campaign”. I find it incredible that anyone could believe that Stephen Fry could lead a Hate Campaign. But, of course, this was shoddy, scaremongering journalism that was wrong on every count. As Fry’s wonderful blog describes (and, just as a side note, is it possible to describe anything Stephen Fry has done as anything other than wonderful?), he was a signatory of a letter, not a leader. This letter began with the phrase:

“I’ve no objection to the Pope coming to visit Britain, he is welcome to do so…”

It is sheer religious privilege that makes atheists the enemies. Our arguments challenge their beliefs and question their actions, as all worthwhile arguments do, and as a result we are accused of bullying, and labelled no better than racists, misogynists and homophobes – all things promoted, at one time or another, on religious grounds.

5 Minutes with the Pope

I've been meaning to do a blog on the Pope UK visit for some time now, but this article in the New Humanist has finally inspired me to get around to it. So, if I had five minutes with the Pope, this is what I would like to say:

Pope Benedict, may I assume, for a second, that there is no God -- the primary justification for your actions and your position of authority. If this is the case, you have made women second class citizens and homosexuals outcasts for no reason. You have helped to spread HIV/AIDS by condemning condoms on the basis of a myth. And people in your organisation (and, if many reports are to be believed, you yourself) have covered up child molesters to protect the reputation of a lie. Given these countless millions who have suffered or have been killed, how is it that you can be regarded as a figure of moral authority, and how can you say, with the complete confidence that it would require, that you have acted justly?

I believe that this is the closest I can come to expressing my disgust at the actions of the Catholic Church, but I will never be able to put into words the horror and sadness that I feel, knowing that there are millions of people who hold this hateful, bigoted, misogynistic homophobe in the highest regard possible.

The Debate About The Debate

Debate is healthy. Most of the time. It can either reaffirm your beliefs, change them, or even tear them down (and the world would be a much better place if fewer people were afraid of that last point). A wider debate would be appreciated in, say, the Daily Express, where stories like "NOW ASYLUM IF YOU'RE GAY" are classed as news, when, in fact, they are mostly speculation and opinion. However, today Ann Widdecombe reversed the problem, as, rather than confusing opinion with fact, she confused fact with opinion.

So what do we learn from Ann's piece, aside from the fact that either she or The Express possesses a shocking inability to use capital letters (I'm not one for grammatical pedantry, but "Really, Mr sanderson?"? The "NHs"? Really??)? Well:

Last week it was reported that the British Humanist [A]ssociation [BHA] has condemned an award given to Noah’s [A]rk Zoo, a creationist centre near Bristol.

Yes, there is a creationist Zoo in North Somerset. You can read a review of it here. For the most part it is exactly what you'd expect from a zoo, except for the fact that it teaches that everything was designed by God, and contradicts evolution with posters like "“30 reasons why apes are not related to man”. And it is described by Widdecombe as "a moderate, education-focused organisation".

But those nasty secularists want to shut it up. They want to stifle the debate. And this is the problem with her argument. There is no debate. The Theory of Evolution is pretty much as sound a theory as we can plan for, with evidence in fossils, genes and anti-biotic resistant bacteria to name but a few sources. It is, to all intents and purposes, undeniable.

"Ah wait", say the creationists, "We're only asking for our opinion to be heard, and for people to make up their own minds". But if you are going to present people with one load of bollocks instead of facts, why stop at Christianity? There's a whole world full of rubbish that might have created everything.

Actually, to be consistent, why stop at the debate over evolution? The same argument is used by anyone going against scientific fact, and particularly pseudo-scientific groups -- that they want people to make up their own minds. Homeopaths are let on to the BBC to "debate" the science behind their magic sugar pills in an effort to remain impartial. Carrying this on, surely every time the Royal Family do anything, David Icke should come on to explain why they are actually acting to further their lizard-alien schemes? Otherwise, are they not just picking and choosing the topics they think open for debate?

Creationism and homeopathy are just conspiracy theories with a lot of followers, but just as careless a disregard for the facts. To claim that anyone wanting to get facts right is "bigoted" would be laughable were it not for the fact that it is such a popular idea, but it is only with these facts that you can have any basis for debate.

writerJames got here first. And better. But I wasn't going to tell you that before you'd read this.

Reassuringly Atheist

It's often said that there are no atheists in foxholes; that when nothing else is left, people will turn to God just to keep hope. It's a view that I know a lot of atheists hold, and I would understand why someone would feel this. But reverting to a religious position is not the only course of action in times of trouble, and there have been times when a lack of belief in a deity has been of great comfort to me.

First of all, it inspires you to act on the things that you can change. Without an all-knowing, all-powerful guy working things out for you, you have to rely on yourself (or someone else who, crucially, exists) to sort things out. OK, so maybe that isn't very reassuring, but it's more likely to get results than sitting around waiting for divine intervention. It also allows you to take whatever credit you are due, or to properly credit the parties involved in sorting the situation. I wonder how many surgeons see their hard work attributed to God or a guardian angel?

On the other hand, there are things we must accept we cannot change, or are powerless the prevent. This is never easy, but, for me, it is easier to look at some statistics and place myself in the context of them than it is to equate an awful event with a loving, omnipotent Father.

There seem to me to be three possible reasons why this wonderful figure would allow you to go through these troubles:
1: He is ignoring you. If this is the case, you may wish to ask yourself why you are going to such levels to appease this man. Seriously, you wouldn't stay in a relationship this one-sided.
2: He is doing this as part of an overarching plan. I once went to a talk on why a benevolent God allowed evil, and was presented with this hypothetical situation: a good couple lose a son in a car accident, then set up a successful campaign for road safety, thus leading to a better world. I'm sure you don't need me to point out the circular logic and doublethink at play here, but really?
3: He is punishing you. Leaving you with a large amount of guilt to add to this completely unfortunate tragedy, as it is in some way ALL YOUR FAULT! Or, of course, you've been caught in the crossfire of someone else's punishment, and so you're back to reason 1.

I've never seen bad circumstance as something that makes a god less likely -- maybe he enjoys watching conflict and misery as much as any Eastenders viewer -- but I find it intensely troubling that people feel the need to thank someone they believe is torturing them in some way (such as in this tweet, which is one of today's most ReTweeted).

Is it not enough to accept that the garden is ruined, without having to imagine the fairies want you dead as well?

My Problem With Organised Religion in 100 Words.

The Church of England has recently announced that it is putting an end to years of institutionalised sexism and will start allowing women to become bishops.

It was also announced this year that the Catholic Church had been protecting paedophiles within its organisation for many years, with internal documents claiming that it was the best thing for the image of the church. These allegations even extend as far as the current Pope.

One of these decisions has so angered some of the members of its church that they are threatening to defect to the other.

Can you guess which one?

Forbidden Art

Today I was shocked to read that Russia has fined and convicted a couple of artists for "inciting hatred". Their crime was merely to put on an exhibit featuring some controversial artworks, portraying images of Jesus Christ that some people might have found offensive. At this point I feel that I should point out that I have not personally seen the exhibits themselves, but neither did 131 of the 134 of the prosecution witnesses, who seemed perfectly happy to testify against them.

So, it seems that Russia can't shake off the specter of censorship, so prevalent in Soviet days. It is a tragedy that the country does not seem to believe in the basic human right to freedom of expression. One would hope that Oleg Kassin, of the rather ominously named Council of the People (the group that brought the complaint against the artists), was not indicative of the government when saying

"If you like expressing yourself freely, do it at home, invite some close friends".

Presumably, not everybody "likes expressing" themselves "freely", then, and that this is a dangerous lifestyle choice? Quite clearly, freedom to express one's opinions should not be limited, or else it isn't "freedom". To tolerate expression in private is only to tolerate free will.

Of course, the condemnation sprang from the fact that the exhibits were seen as "anti-Christian". Once again, we see the religious extremists criticising the use of the free will they believe their creator gave them. It is terrible an organisation is allowed to go completely uncriticised because it describes itself as a religion. There will no doubt be supporters of the ruling here, perhaps invoking a previous shameful ruling against the artists' work as an example of people not respecting their faith. But why should "faith" be the only thing exempt from satire, or critique?

The sensitivity of religious organisations is beyond that of any other, beyond even what is reasonable. Is there any other figure that could be placed in Mickey Mouse ears and so anger a group that they claim it is "inciting hatred"? The idea is quite clearly ludicrous. The marches against Jerry Springer: The Opera showed that certain people struggled with the concept of "freedom of speech" in this country, but the BBC refused to give in to this. That in Russia that expression is a criminal offence is nothing short of scandalous.