In any case, of particular interest, I’m quite sorry I’ll miss this one, they’ve invited Dr George Claassen! He’s quite an outspoken atheist (or should I call him an agnostic? not sure…), slightly vitriolic by some accounts, blogging at Prometheus Unbound. What would make this so interesting, is to see how he presents himself in person, when talking to a… “sophisticated” religious group, i.e. not fundamentalists, not anti-science evolution-deniers.

I’m blogging this in the hopes that some of my blogging friends might attend.

Date and Time: Tuesday 10 February from 17:00 to 18:00 (lecture) followed by discussion of the subject, until 18:30.
Title: Religion and Science: Dialogue or Duel?
Place: Stellenbosch
Language: Afrikaans… (Geloof en Wetenskap: Dialoog of Teenstryd?)

Let me know if you’re interested in going (drop a comment and fill in your email address correctly), and I’ll pass on the details!

Also interesting is the next lecture/discussion:

Ons volgende lesing en gesprek sal o.l.v dr. Jurie van den Heever (spreker) op 24 Februarie plaasvind oor die onderwerp: “Darwin se windhond ontmoet Darwin se Engel … Hoe om Richard Dawkins op die vingers te tik”. Almal welkom.

Dr Jurie van den Heever is a paleontologist, I had a good chat with him when I was still in Stellenbosch. This one has me equally curious, if I were in town, I’d be there! He’s a good scientist with a really good head on his shoulders, and has grappled with creationism/creationists on Stellenbosch. It sounds to me like he’s also playing an important role in helping South African teachers get the teaching of evolution right. As such, he surely has a good sensitivity to South African culture and what it means to introduce greater scientific knowledge within our culture.

The title of his talk is something like “Darwin’s greyhound meets Darwin’s Angel … How to rap Richard Dawkins over the knuckles”. (“Darwin’s greyhound” refers to Dawkins, like “Darwin’s Bulldog” refers to Thomas Henry Huxley from way back when.) Anyway, based on the title, I wouldn’t be surprised if the talk touches on the kind of material mentioned in Darwin’s Angel. And it is always good to get a discussion going, with multiple viewpoints, assuming the viewpoints are well thought out, well considered, thorough… and Jurie’s will be!

Oh, and if someone can make a recording (especially of Claassen), I’ve heard back from one friend that can’t attend, who’s as eager as I to find another way of hearing Claassen in that context. Are there legal issues involved with doing that? For something other than “personal use”?

Nog meer ekstreem kies party vir fundamentalisme, wat vir jou sê dat net hierdie kerk (ja, ek weet hulle sê die Bybel, maar daarmee bedoel hulle eintlik net my interpretasie van die Bybel, en dus per implikasie net my kerk) die antwoorde het, en vertel jou dis sonde om op ander plekke in die wêreld te gaan luister.

If you understand Afrikaans, go read the original post to see what he was on about. In the case of this post of mine, I’m focusing on the ideas and implications of the concept of fundamentalism that his post inspired. In short, the relevant clause from Cobus’ post is this:

Fundamentalism: it tells you that only “this church” has the answers, and that it is sinful to go listen to other sources.

What concept does this “fundamentalism” word point to then? The basic principle is this: “we are right, those that disagree are wrong — listen to the right sources, avoid the wrong sources — believe/think these correct things, reject those incorrect things”. Combine with that principle the realisation that everyone is right about some things and wrong about some other things, then the “fundamentalism” label points to a concept unrelated to being right or wrong, and rather to a certain attitude.

(For the purpose of this post, expand your concept of believe or belief to extend to those things you think — “I don’t believe anything” is an absolutely lame cop-out.)

Now… we all believe the things we believe, because we believe those things to be true/correct — assuming we really believe them. (Yes, I’m stating a tautology, please bear with me. And read that sentence again and think about it.) If we give up on believing something is true, we… um… we stop believing it. (Duh.) Are we on the same page so far?

In contemplating the meaning of “fundamentalism” in this context, two cases or understandings present themselves to me (and unfortunately so — I was hoping to focus on one, but I can’t neglect the other).

Personal Fundamentalism

The first is personal fundamentalism. This concept of fundamentalism deals with personal beliefs and how they are constructed and developed. How firmly are these beliefs held? Can they be changed, developed, replaced? Beliefs/thoughts/ideas which are non-negotiable to the believer/thinker/philosopher are their fundamental beliefs — with respect to those beliefs, the believer/thinker/philosopher is a fundamentalist.

Fundamentalism started out as a positive term used by a group to describe themselves. (Source: Wikipedia – fundamentalism, citing two sources.) When understood in this sense, we all have fundamentals, and are all therefore fundamentalists of some sort.

When Richard Dawkins or his fans argue that he or they are not fundamentalists, they are typically arguing about personal fundamentalism, and they typically mean they will revise any of their beliefs if presented with evidence to the contrary. They are arguing that their epistemology is a non-fundamentalistic one, leaving them open to new understandings and ideas. (Epistemology: the study of the nature knowledge and justification, and the extent to which we have either. [src])

Thus: their ideas about epistemology are the right ideas, and other ideas, lower standards, are wrong. See where I’m going with this? They have as their fundamentals a certain epistemological standard. Keep on digging, and you should be able to find anyone’s fundamentals, fundamentals about which they could be proud to be called fundamentalists. Even, dare I say, nihilists! While my first thought was that they’d be an example of no fundamentals, I think maybe it requires a certain fundamental mindset to take you to nihilism: insisting, as a fundamental, that you don’t accept any fundamentals that are unprovable…?

As much as I like high epistemological standards and appreciate the particular ways in which Dawkins and fans are not fundamentalists, I will continue to insist on pointing out the other ways in which they are. When I do something like point out ways in which we are all fundamentalists, I hope to disarm name-calling and start talking about the actual concepts at hand.

Developing good fundamentals is certainly fundamental to living a good life. (Take as broad a view as you can on the meaning of “good” here.)

Interpersonal Fundamentalism

In personal beliefs, you can have an intense conviction of a particular belief/idea, living by it fully, but still be open to replacing or revising that belief/idea. Rephrased: being prepared to reexamine and change your beliefs or ideas does not mean you cannot be very serious about those beliefs or ideas while holding them. (Hint: all you need is humility to be able to let go of older ideas, and eagerness and a positive mindset in embracing new ones.) So I have no qualms about ideas and beliefs held strongly and dearly. Instead…

Introduce the big complicator for all aspects of human expression: interpersonal relationships. In moving away from the ego-centric concerns of personal fundamentalism, we discover an interpersonal version of the concept:

I’m right and you’re wrong. Period.

…what I do have qualms about, is the way we communicate and interact about our ideas and beliefs.

The interpersonal version of “fundamentalism” is the one I care about most, because it impacts other people. As I mentioned earlier, we are all right about some things, and wrong about others, and often it is a real waste of time — or even actively harmful to our well-being — to critically analyse every belief or thought/idea we have. Since we sincerely believe we are right about the things we are right about (there’s that tautology again), we effectively believe that those that don’t believe the same things have incorrect beliefs.

Given that this is the case for all of us, the concern should rather be about the way we interact about our differences. If we all try to convert everyone over to our way of seeing things, convince them to let go of the things we believe they are wrong about and start believing/thinking the things we believe we are right about, and we do so for everything, we will be fighting for ever. It will get us nowhere.

And this will always be the case, because there is too much that we disagree about and always will disagree about. (Never mind factual claims right now, we are talking about interpretive things, subjective things, we’re talking about Meh. Arguably that is all we really have to go by: consider (Re?)Introducing Meh and Lah and discuss it there if you want some clarity on this idea.)

This is where democracy comes in, for example: we know there are many things we will never agree on, and it is a waste of time arguing about many of these things, so we develop compromising systems by which we can settle on a decision or course of action that we decide is good enough for now. This works in some spheres, but not in others.

Getting back to the point… the interpersonal understanding of “fundamentalism” deals with how people interact, not about whether they are right or wrong. If using this understanding of the word, many Richard Dawkins fans would certainly be fundamentalists as much as any religious fundamentalist: they approach interpersonal conversations with the attitude and thesis of “we are right and you are wrong”, and often whack you over the head with it as often and as hard as they can. Ditto for religious fundamentalists. Who is right and who is wrong is not the point, because, remember, we are all wrong and we are all right. The point here is how we interact. I think this is the concept pointed to by the word “fundamentalist”, when people label Richard Dawkins or his fans as such.

Here are then some of my suggestions to those that wish to avoid coming across as fundamentalists in this interpersonal sense:

• Remind yourself that you are wrong about a great many things, and that there are many things that you do not yet know and never will know.
• With some momentum picked up from the previous point, consider, even if for only a moment, that you may indeed be wrong about the belief in question, and that the other might be right. Basically, try to mentally take yourself a notch closer to center on the “Dawkins scale”, even if only temporarily for the purpose of a particular interaction.
• Approach interactions with the knowledge that you agree about some things and disagree about other things. Build and develop some common ground based on your agreements. Try as best you can to understand the experience and worldview of the other and how they see things and experience things. In that regard, stretch and challenge your talent for empathy to the point that it becomes a trained skill.
• When discussing disagreements, have some goal or purpose in mind. Know why you are discussing or debating a particular disagreement, and focus on that purpose or goal. Be clear about it: explain the reason you are disagreeing and why you consider this particular issue to be important.
• Listen! Be helpful and proactive in encouraging the other to formulate their concerns — in order to clearly demarcate what the discussion is about.
• As soon as you realise a discussion is only about you being right and them being wrong, rather than about some actually useful purpose, stop! Think for a moment. There is most likely a better use of your time, one that makes a much greater or useful contribution in the grand scheme of things. Maybe you could encourage the other to focus on positive contributions rather than fighting about the trivialities. (For my use of the word in this context, it is a triviality if you cannot identify a good reason or purpose for arguing about it.)
• Be humble in you demeanor, don’t allow confidence about your message, belief or idea turn you into a bully.
• Be prepared to walk away with the disagreement unresolved. Better yet, make it your intent to do so. I suggest aiming to avoid resolving the issue, as I believe the aim should be to stretch and encourage thinking. You shouldn’t be aiming to establish a new authoritarian relationship (where one is right and the other is wrong), but rather to try to create a mutually nurturing mindset. The ideal is to encourage something akin to metanoia (Wiktionary: “A fundamental change of mind; Spiritual conversion”), which is something personal and internal. And it should be for both of you.

  With regards to the purpose that drove the conversation, let the other draw up conclusions for themselves, in their own time, maybe after the conversation is finished (even long after). Don’t break your head over it though… while there was a purpose or focus for the conversation, what you should carry away from it for yourself, is a better understanding of the other, a better understanding of how their mind works, what makes them tick, why they operate the way they do. Ideally it should lead to something of a metanoia in yourself as well.

  Whether this happens gradually or in a sudden flash of Eureka! does not matter. Life’s a journey. May any eventual conclusion be one of mutual cooperation rather than one of victory and defeat.

These are just my suggestions. You are of course welcome to not follow them. You are welcome to have fun being a bully, as much as others are welcome to call you a fundamentalist.

If, however, you think I may be onto something here, or you want to discuss these ideas, in agreement or disagreement, or in figuring out how they can be applied, please do so!

Bear in mind I’m a bridge builder, my goal is to facilitate trade and travel between two banks — cross pollination is beautifully creative, in memes just as much as in genes. Here is a potentially worthwhile exercise: reread this post while mentally role-playing a resident of the opposite bank. The most useful contributions for my goals are those that work both ways.

Suggested thought-provoking reading material that can also serve as more food for discussion: Richard Lewontin: Billions and Billions of Demons, a critical review of Carl Sagan’s book “The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.”

So how does a label-agnostic approach such claims then?

1. You are addicted to computer games.
2. Atheism is a religion.
3. Richard Dawkins is a fundamentalist.
4. Shofar is a cult.

You are addicted to computer games

I’m borrowing the first example from a friend, whose mother was concerned about his World of Warcraft “addiction”. Apparently the debate then centred around what an addiction is, and whether his behaviour with regards to World of Warcraft is formally an addiction or not. My label/word-agnostic approach to the statement is to rather dig into what his mother meant when she used that particular label to describe his behaviour. What is it that his mother is referring to, when she makes that assertion? Is her concern a valid one, irrespective of whether she’s using the “supposedly correct” definition of “addiction”? Or, in other words, in what ways could he be said to be addicted?

Atheism is a religion

I had planned to blog about this specific claim. However, considering adherents of our local pentecostal church claims they’re not religious, that religion kills — claiming that their “relationship” is something different from “religion” — I decided the local definition of “religion” is anyway too enigmatic for such a discussion to be of much use. Locally, that is, and that’s one aspect of my blog’s focus. So some pentecostals claim they’re not religious, while some religious people call atheism “a religion”, thereby indicating yet another definition of “religion”, in my opinion. So does it matter? When does it matter?

Here’s the crux, pointed out succinctly by Steve’s comment on my old “Is Atheism a Religion?” post:

Calling atheism a religion means nothing unless the people doing this “name-calling” use this “fact” to draw conclusions.

Thus the relevant definition of religion for this question actually depends on these people who typically claim atheism is a religion – what do they mean by religion?

Discussing the question for other definitions of religion is not likely to be very fruitful…

I had one particular example I wanted to use in a follow-up to that post, it was this: an example where a court ruled that atheism was a “religion”. This is a great illustration of how important the context is, because this ruling was in fact in favour of the atheist involved: see Court rules atheism a religion. (For those too lazy to follow links: too bad. I can recommend learning web-surfing techniques like opening links in new tabs — middle click does the trick in Firefox, but not everyone uses a three-button mouse and Firefox: try shift-click and ctrl-click.) So for that particular context, for that particular purpose, atheism is indeed a religion. Context.

Richard Dawkins is a fundamentalist

I’m guilty of having done this kind of name-calling. And I realise that it is very dependent upon the definition, and I have repented, and don’t do this (as often) anymore. The definition the “New Atheist” movement typically uses, deals with how prepared you are to change your viewpoints, when given convincing, empirical, verifiable evidence. By their definition, they are not fundamentalists.

Rather the question then, in what ways could they be considered fundamentalistic? Empirical fundamentalism? Reality fundamentalists? — You know, they’re fundamentalistic about having their world-view being based on “reality”… A George W. Bush aide famously used “reality-based community” in a pejorative sense (from a New York Times Magazine article by Ron Suskin, pilfering references from Wikipedia):

The aide said that guys like me were ”in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who ”believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ”That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. ”We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

I think someone’s been too busy watching things like “What the Bleep Do We Know?” or reading books like “The Secret”.

So what exactly is it that earns the “New Atheist movement” the label “fundamentalist”, fairly or unfairly? What is it that people mean by that, what is it that they’re pointing to and upset about? I think it is probably mostly the way they present themselves. Passionately and with confidence, maybe… and upsetting to people that disagree. As such, I suspect this version of the “fundamentalism” word has much to do with tolerance or intolerance for diverse viewpoints (irrespective of whether it is justified or not), and the perceived attitude of “I’m right and you’re wrong”. A perceived lack of humility. A perceived air of superiority… Something like that.

I suspect people want a more “neutral” approach, something that doesn’t come across as condescending of their beliefs, more sensitive to their sources of meaning in life. The next post considers this particular point with regards to how I’d like to handle differences of opinion on this blog. (That post inspired me to write and publish this one first.)

Shofar is a cult

This is another assertion I don’t care that much about. It doesn’t really make any difference to me whether Shofar is a cult or not. To some it might. Hypothesize for example the existence of an “anti-cult task force”: if their mission statement is to dismantle cults, they’d first need to decide whether an institution in question is a cult or not.

But I’m not part of that kind of task force. And I’m label-agnostic. Like I said, I couldn’t care less whether Shofar is formally a cult or not. Frame humanity in a particular frame, and we can claim “humanity is a cult”. (Yes, frivolous, I’m just sharing how I feel.) What difference could it possibly make if some people conclude “yes, Shofar is a cult”, or others conclude “no, it isn’t”? Is there any real value in this semantic debate?

Why I’m Wrong

Maybe everyone involved couldn’t really care less about formal definitions… maybe it is like the typical stale-mate debate on whether God exists or not. That debate never reaches a conclusion, it ends in a stand-off. However, what should not be overlooked, is the value of the arguments that are exchanged in the process of debating the label. The very debate of the matter ends up answering the question in what ways might Shofar be considered a cult?, irrespective of any eventual conclusion. The assertion has value in sparking discussion wherein people’s opinions and perspectives of Shofar can be shared, and the curious can observe to gain some insight.

Epilogue

But this is no court case. There is no defence. The defence doesn’t want to play by the prosecution’s rules. Presenting a defence would be acknowledging that there is something to defend, thereby granting the prosecution’s arguments too much attention. So they avoid that debate, or play by different rules. With no defence, there is no court case, and with no court case, there can be no conviction. Strategically, often the best way to not risk loosing, is to not play in the first place. It makes very much sense.

I can just as easily deal in tired, overused, clichéd Dawkins-fanboy responses. They’re getting particularly boring and irritating. (Kinda like quoting Biblical truthisms? *ducks and runs*) That kind of rhetoric might work in certain fundie circles, it might even work on 95% of all Christians (I doubt it though), as most Christians are as “theologically illiterate” as Dawkins was when he wrote “The God Delusion”. (I prefer to believe Dawkins himself is a little more theologically literate than he lets on, or that he has learned quite a bit since the publishing of his polemic.) This blog isn’t a fundie blog though. If you want to spout fundamentalistic empiricism, please do so elsewhere.

Here’s an interview with Dawkins that might irk some fanboys: God… in other words. There is a lot of good stuff to read there. One little excerpt that is relevant:

“I do think that intelligent, sophisticated theologians are almost totally irrelevant to the phenomenon of religion in the world today. Regrettable as that may be.” Why so? “Because they’re outnumbered by vast hordes of religious idiots.”

Unfortunately for Dawkins, people often judge him based on the behaviour of those that look like his “followers”. These fanboys sadly lack Dawkins’ more admirable qualities. Jesus kinda has the same PR problem today.

Some thoughts from a review of Alister McGrath’s book, “Dawkins’ God”:

Throughout, McGrath maintains a balanced tone, treating Dawkins’ writing respectfully even when it is ignorant or nasty. He also contents himself by showing that Dawkins’ atheism is suspect rather than demonstrably wrong.

If that sounds odd, it is because we have been conned into the kind of over-simplistic thinking that Dawkins sometimes promotes and that McGrath criticises – specifically, the idea that unless something can be proved, it is false; that either you know something by proof or you don’t know it at all. McGrath shows that this is not so; that many theories are critically ‘underdetermined’ by evidence and that it is not just religious people who live by faith.

I’ve misplaced a link to another McGrath review that I quite liked. (It was more critical, and had a particular piece I wanted to quote.) Oh well.

Exercise to the reader, especially the atheistic ones: identify some of the things that you accept, despite them being “underdetermined” by evidence.

I have been talking about “Walking the Streets of Athens” in a number of places. This idea applies to anyone wanting to make a difference in other people’s lives. You need to walk their streets, understand their culture, understand their needs, and figure out whether you have something to offer that would make a positive contribution to their lives, and what that would be.

For example, if you are serious about dealing with “the problems in the middle east” in the most effective way possible, and are prepared to give your life to the cause, the first step is to become one of them, in the sense of walking among them, immersing yourself in their culture, to experience and understand it. You need to understand the reasons for their culture, the benefits of their culture, the source of their culture… If you cannot recognise the good, be careful, because you run the risk of doing more harm than good. You run the risk of being the typical colonialist. Rather support the people that are prepared to go the distance.

This idea seems like common sense, but time and again I see people not heeding it. By all means, criticise elements that need criticism, point out the problems. Have discussions. Inspire other people to become more involved. To revisit the topic that I’ve been beating to death and back to life again many times over, Dawkins’ The God Delusion: the good contribution this book makes, is to make people more aware of the important issues. It provides those that lacked self-confidence with a naturalistic worldview with more confidence and faith in their lack of belief in the supernatural. It also inspires action. Unfortunately, I disagree with the kind of action it all too often inspires. /me bites my tongue to avoid criticising the bad yet again.

Anyway, the “Walking the Streets of Athens” idea was presented in a “sermon” (ugh, find another word?) presented by Erwin McManus at Stellenbosch Gemeente on 11 June 2007. While Stellenbosch Gemeente is mostly Afrikaans, Erwin is a visitor from far away (Los Angeles). His “sermons” are in English. The “Walking the Streets of Athens” sermon was given in the morning, titled Street Walker. (If you are interested, you can find an mp3 of the sermon by following that link then clicking on the image on the right that says “Luister”.)

The first time I used the Street Walker idea on my blog, was in my How To Convert An Atheist post. I wrote that series of three posts while embracing the “secular humanist” label, effectively considering myself an atheist at the time. That means that series was written while pondering “How To Convert Myself“. (Quite surprising how well that actually worked… ) The key idea behind the series was “You need to learn to think, like an atheist does”. It was intending to educate Christians, rather than to convert atheists.

In the “Street Walker” sermon Erwin also mentions a person he invited to attend his congregation, who only realised it was a “church” after three weeks. (This was the inspiration for the You Have Been Tricked post.) And then he took his first steps into following Jesus…

This being a sermon delivered at a church full of people that speak Christianese, it should come as no surprise that Erwin speaks Christianese in this sermon. If you’re an atheist, you likely don’t understand Christianese, and you likely have a very specific set of connotations attached to the idea of “giving your life to Jesus”, and the alarm bells will likely ring in your head when you read this post or listen to the sermon. And you will be wrong. Most likely. Chances are, you’ve been brainwashed by fundamentalists, brainwashed into thinking that all Christians are fundamentalists, brainwashed into thinking that “Christianity” is about rejecting science and obsessing about the afterlife, brainwashed into thinking that following Jesus means what they want you to think it means. So be careful. Don’t be too quick to jump to conclusions when you listen to a language you don’t understand. (I should drop my silly brainwashing rhetoric. Rather, the point is this: consider the early Christian movement, even before it was called “Christianity”, especially before it got wedded to government and became a state-sponsored authoritarian religion. There is a lot of baggage from the last few hundred years which I/we assert is hiding the original meaning. We’re trying to get back at that meaning.)

I’d love to attend his church and see how he runs things. I will have to look it up if I’m ever in the area. (I heard Erwin’s congregation also includes Buddhists and Atheists. Sweet! I want to go check out his language…)

Erwin’s evening sermon was about Beauty. The legendary snippet that I will always remember, where he talks about eating meat (I’ll not spoil any of it yet), starts at 6:10 (mins:secs) into the mp3, and continues to about 9:50. After that, he talks some more about how meat cuts are selected, before he talks about coffee. If you don’t want to hear any Christianese, you can stop listening at 11:45. Before 6:10 and after 11:45 contains Christianese. While you can read my transcript of the “eating meat” part below (from 6:10 to 9:50), a transcript really cannot do Erwin McManus any justice.

The Transcript

Is it possible to train yourself to be blind to beauty? And only enjoy the ugliness or the common? Now I love meat. (Anybody love meat?) I love red meat. I love pretty much anything that moves on four legs. And whenever I want vegetables, I just eat chicken. And in LA, people are vegetarians, and they’re very… they look down on people like me who are carnivores. And I tell them, the reason I am a carnivore and not a vegetarian, is because of ethical reasons. Cause I don’t believe you should eat anything that cannot run for its life. And fruit and vegetables don’t have a fair (?) escape, they’re just hanging there trapped in the ground hoping that no-one sees them, and (snip, dunno) I’m far too compassionate for that. It’s not my fault that cows are under-motivated to escape, and that chickens are not that bright.

But I’m also from a country called El Salvador, so whenever we ate our meat we’d always burn it. We’d have it well done, which seems like it would be the best way to do it is well done, because well done is better than poorly done, and so I would always have my meat well done, because for me, carbon was a food group, and… and I remember when I was fifteen, and we’d moved to the United States, and I was living in Miami Florida, and I found, my parents found this great restaurant, it had the best meat, and steak, and ribs, and… So I got a job there, so I could eat there, and I went ahead and begged for employment, and they gave me a job even though I was under-age and I couldn’t wait because I could eat all the meat I wanted, for free.

And my first steak, I ordered it… well done. And they came back from the kitchen and said, “The chef said no.” What do you mean, the chef said no?! “He said he would not cook it well done.” Tell him it’s my steak, I want it well done! And they went back, and they came back, and they said, “The chef said… no!” It’s my free steak, I want it, well… done…! And then the chef came out, and he was from Cuba, and he was very animated, and he said “I want to see the man that wants to ruin my meat!” Now I just want my steak well done. And he said, “No! You never cook a steak well done, you cook it medium rare, at most!” No… I don’t want medium rare, I don’t want a bloody steak, can the blood… s’everywhere, it goes into the mashed potatoes, I… I don’t want it medium rare! I want my steak well done!

And he made me a deal. He said, “I’ll cook it for you medium rare. You take one bite, and if you don’t like it, I’ll burn a steak for you.” And I thought, two steaks! That’ll work. So I said sure, and he cooked me a steak, and it was medium rare, and it came out, and it looked so terrible. It was all bloody and… undercooked, and… there was nowhere I could identify charcoal burns, and it just seemed so wrong, but, he was there, and he waited, so I cut into that steak, and I didn’t want the fact that it sliced like butter to deceive me, and… then I… I put it into my mouth. It began melting. My steak began to sing. And, I met God… that day… My life was changed forever, and after that, it was prime rib, give me it so rare, it still has the memory of being a cow. I want my meat rare! I love sashimi, you just bring me rare meat, and it’s just wonderful!

This piece was included to gratuitously offend Bertus!, who is a vegetarian. (Dave, you’re more than welcome to be offended as well, if you like.)

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

A Gallup poll taken in 1999 asked Americans whether they would vote for an otherwise well-qualified person who was a woman (95 per cent would), a Roman Catholic (94 per cent would), Jew (92 per cent), black (92 per cent), Mormon (79 per cent), homosexual (79 per cent), or atheist (49 per cent).

Now here’s the thing, irrespective of whether I’m a theist or an atheist, I would have serious reservations about voting for someone that does not understand the language that the majority of his countrymen speak. I don’t care about his personal views. If he doesn’t understand his countrymen and cannot communicate well, how could I vote for him in good faith?

Until now, I suspect that publicly donning the “atheist” label served as a decent indicator to identify people that lack an understanding of theistic language. From an old post of mine:

South Africa long had the policy of not accepting blood donations from non-whites, purely because statistically, “white blood” was more likely to be AIDS-free. How is that for a can of worms? Statistics, dangerous stuff. Naturally, this policy was forced to change. I don’t know what statistics they now use to determine what blood is “safer” and what is “less safe”.

People do not distrust the label “atheist”, they distrust the things that “atheist” is currently an indicator for. The Out Campaign is then merely trying to dilute the word to the point where it no longer serves as that indicator. Why do you care so much about the label? I also believe comparing it to the Gay Pride movement is a logical fallacy. That movement was about fighting the marginalisation of people with a particular physiology. (Physiology? There must be a better word?) The Out Campaign is, in my opinion, merely destigmatising a label, nothing more. Yay. A label that many say shouldn’t even exist. (I suspect one might even be able to find a Richard Dawkins quote that includes him in that “many”.) OK, yes, I understand. You would like to be “united”. You want your voice heard. I have another idea to complement the “Out Campaign”. It’s on its way.

Now on to a statement Richard Dawkins made at AAI. He mentioned he would have been a bad choice of witness at the Dover trial. He said if confronted with the question “does evolution lead to atheism?”, he would have to answer “yes”. I’m convinced he thereby illustrates his lack of understanding of theistic language. What is the question really? The question is this: “Does evolution lead to an absolutely meaningless existence? Does evolution lead to a lack of hope? Does evolution lead to nothing to base your morality on?” This is what Richard Dawkins would have answered “yes” to. You must understand that people cannot trust politicians that go around saying “Your existence is meaningless! There is no point in behaving morally! Life is hopeless! Hopeless, I tell you!”

When communicating, what the recipient hears is much more important than what the speaker is trying to say. What would be the more valuable way of answering that question? Sidestep the word, if you are unable to communicate in theistic language. Use better words. “Well, evolution does not lead to a lack of hope, morality or meaning in life. If that is what you mean by ‘God’, then clearly evolution cannot lead to a rejection of God…”

Yes, one potential snag: “Please answer the question Mr Dawkins: Yes or No?”. Now the problem with the legal system and society as a whole: it assumes we are all talking the same language. And so we build a Tower of Babel, and we kill each other because we do not even realise we’re not speaking the same language. How about this: “I’m sorry, I do not understand what you mean by the question, as there are so many different definitions of ‘God’. Can you define ‘God’ for me?” (Hehe… nasty, that. God is beyond definition, not so?)

The language of angels, the language of men, and apparently no-one that is able to translate? Fools!

I need to get some more pro-science posts out, in preparation for the launching of the P-campaign. That pig better start running soon, else I’ll go mad. Again. A bacon-related deadline passes on Monday so hopefully I will have time to work on getting the pig flying next week. I’m hoping it will succeed at its first flight before the next full moon.

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

All of these came from friends that read my blog and comment sometimes. Does God Believe in Atheists is actually on loan, not for keeps. The notes added in that picture are my uninformed tongue-in-cheek satirical summary of my initial impression of the standpoints of the authors. Don’t take those notes too seriously. I have not yet read any books by any of these authors, though I have started on one of Rob Bell’s books and seen him “live” on multiple occasions.

Below the fold is the list of books and my comments, for those that cannot make out the photo above, and do not want to download a higher resolution version.

• Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion – Atheists say God does not exist
• John Blanchard, Does God Believe in Atheists – God says atheists do not exist
• Rob Bell, Sex God – Let’s define “God” as something that DOES exist, rather than something that DOES NOT
• Paul Kurtz, Embracing the Power of Humanism – So what is this “Humanism” thing then?

Another book I received, that does not fall directly into the main book theme, is Steven Pressfield’s The War of Art. As I understand it, this book was given to me more for the purpose of critical evaluation than for direct personal enrichment. Hehe, I love my friends. (And I wish we had more words for different kinds of “love”. Like the Greeks do, for example.)

You might notice I recently had some fun tearing holes in pages from thesis drafts, then tackling them with spray paint. My flickr account has more photos of the fun I had.

I would not vote for someone who does not understand religion. I don’t care if he’s an atheist or a theist, if he wants my vote, he needs to understand how the population thinks. The Out-Campaign serves only to dilute the meaning of the label “atheist” to the point where it no longer means “I don’t understand religion”. At that point, it becomes harder to discriminate based on how informed or uninformed they are.

South Africa long had the policy of not accepting blood donations from non-whites, purely because statistically, “white blood” was more likely to be AIDS-free. How is that for a can of worms? Statistics, dangerous stuff. Naturally, this policy was forced to change. I don’t know what statistics they now use to determine what blood is “safer” and what is “less safe”. Skin colour is a label, just like “atheist”. It means only what we make it mean. What is wrong with “freethinker”, “post-theist”, “post-atheist”, “naturalist”, or… um… I dunno, a gazillion other words? Ah, yes, we need to “stand together”. I think Dawkins realised he’s all alone (that’s hyperbole, guys), and created the Out Campaign to rally people to his side, when he noticed The God Delusion was not having the desired effect. (That’s just what I think, not necessarily true.)

Anyway, back to the story: I was also unable to tolerate things that seemed silly or wrong, but I hated being judgemental. I’m too compassionate for that. It nearly killed me. So which side do I choose? I saw truth on both sides of the fence. This was really, really tough. But I kept searching. He who searches, shall find. After a lot of grief, I reached a point where I finally understood. Now I don’t even have to “tolerate”, I can simply “love”. Love all of humanity in all of its great diversity. And English sucks, because it only has one word for “love”. Kill the other languages, and you kill lots of wisdom about “love”.

So which side of the fence? You have only to realise that there is no fence!

So he goes on his merry way, advocating genocide. A beautiful culture is destroyed. A natural human heritage. A way of living in harmony with nature. So instead, after destroying the Indian, white man continues to destroy the planet.

This is what I see Richard Dawkins doing. It’s all good and well, he can happily be an atheist, he can live his life. But when he calls for memetic genocide to destroy religion, he does so without understanding the language. And he expects the religious to explain to him, in his scientific terms, what the value of their culture is. And trust me, there is value.

If you want to understand, you can’t sit back and laugh while the Indian tries to learn English. You need to help him. We need to open dialogue, else we will simply continue in our genocidal ways. Clearly something modernistic human beings love doing. Just look at the history of colonialism.

Richard Dawkins is a colonialist.

And he knows this. He realises he may have made a strategic blunder. Give the guy some credit, please.

I’m not sure which group has more diversity of beliefs: atheism, or Christianity. I suppose comparing atheism with theism might be more correct. Either way, we have atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, “brights”, skeptics, freethinkers, more… (Maybe we can even include atheistic religions like Buddhism? Naah.) Similar diversity in Christianity is grouped together under the label “Christian”.

So, what is heard by some people when “I am an atheist” is uttered? This is what some people hear:

I have no appreciation for my existence, I lack any sense of wonder. I do not acknowledge any mystery in the world. I am not at all thankful or appreciative for my existence (as I am not thankful to the “original cause”). I just am. There is no meaning to life. It is all pointless. There is no action that can be labelled “good” and no action “bad”. I might as well just drink all day and all night, if that makes me happy. Hell, why not go shoot some people, considering I don’t have to be moral. There are no adverse consequences to immoral behaviour. I think all theists are stupid. They suffer from delusion. They are “dim”, while I am “bright”.

Yes, this is what some people hear, even if it is not what is meant. That’s quite a mouthful to de-stigmatise.

Again, to de-stigmatise the label, people need to get to know you, rather than your label. Only once they know you, can you make any contribution by telling them what label you use. Only then might they understand what you mean by that label. De-stigmatising the label is irrelevant, the aim is to de-stigmatising the world-view.

So this is the idea behind Dawkins’ “Out Campaign”. Many atheists out there have already built relationships with “religionists”. The “Out Campaign” aims to unify the efforts to de-stigmatise the world-view, through use of the label. Whether it will be useful for you to contribute or not, is something only you can determine. You know your audience, no-one else does. Do you care much for the “atheism” label? Do you think it worthwhile to de-stigmatise it? Or might it be counter-productive and serve only to stigmatise something else you’re standing for? Priorities… Tough call.

I have a very different approach, the post-modernist that I seem to be. (Dawkins seems a typical modernist.) Free people from labels all around, then they are much more free to develop their own world-view, rather than having it forced down their throats by some pigeonholing label. Have patience, the P campaign is on its way. (Give me another two weeks or so. And get me a copyrightable Red P!)

Do you think it is worthwhile de-stigmatising the “atheist” label? How do your thoughts about this post compare to your thoughts about the Christian language problem post?

Further reading: Language Differences.

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password: