 few of those. It appears the statements of even the last 2 Archbishops of Canterbury might more properly be called deist than ‘Christian’.
That’s an awesome excerpt!
tldr
signed,
Lebanon, Mo
Too bold, didn’t dare to read.
signed,
Lebanon, Mo
.”
But if this were true wouldn’t it make David Bentley Hart’s book on God total bollocks? Shurely shome mishtake…
Seems like a win-win to me…
As far as I can tell, about the only two things religions have in common are:
1. Humans are privileged above all other animals, above and beyond simple mechanical differences in our anatomy and physiology. This is usually conferred via a “soul”.
2. The whole universe cares what we do, and metes out carrots and sticks accordingly.
I wonder if religion succeeds because, deep down, it puffs up our egos, whether by telling us we’re not expendable animals or by telling us the world is our personal playground. And once you’ve flattered your audience, it’s that much easier to manipulate them. It’s even better if you can manipulate them into manipulating others into the bargain.
You might also notice that the supernatural consists almost entirely of minds of one sort or another, often human-like ones. Religion is basically anthropocentrism applied to ignorance and, so to speak, deified.
Well, I will happily trade “humans are special because the creator made us special and made the universe for us” for “humans are nothing special and the universe could not care less about us, but we are nevertheless capable of figuring out how the universe works, incompletely, but to an astonishing degree of accuracy”.
/@
Ah what a dream! An ideal world in which church and State are truly separate. I have always wondered why religions are tax exempt? I understand the mechanics of the law that allows the exemption to happen but it makes no sense that they do not contribute to society the same way that other businesses do. Such vast sums of money that could contribute, properly, to the social welfare and infrastructure goals of government.
I’m always astonished at how many Christians think their beliefs, if they are held privately, ought to be just left alone. They don’t seem to have any grasp of just how malignant their theology can be. But so far as it’s held “privately” we are supposed to steer clear and grant it respect, or least say “what’s the harm?.”
I use the example of the bizarre, racist neighbor.
Imagine you have a neighbor who has always seemed entirely pleasant and decent. Except one day through conversation over the hedge you discover something he believes. He says “All Black people deserve to be hung or burned alive.”
You react with horror when this escapes from his lips. He notices and says “Oh, don’t worry, I’m not saying that I would ever do such a thing to a black person. In fact, I know plenty of black people and I live very peaceably among them. But see, I’m not the one who is supposed to be hanging and burning them. Someone else, with the power to do so, will be doing that.”
This would be bad enough for anyone decent person to listen to, let alone if you also happened to be a black person.?
This is what it’s like listen to an otherwise sane sounding, smiling Christian
talk about hell that I, as an atheist, would be sent to by his God. “Oh, don’t worry. I’m not going to do this to you…but the fact is the universe IS run by God, and this is the fate God has in store for you. And, as much as I personally dislike the idea of people in hell, I nonetheless believe your fate must be justified, since I believe God to be All Good. What kind of morals would I have without God??!!”
Even IF the Christian lives happily and peaceably among atheists, and says his belief would never compel him to harm atheists…how could we say this is not AT LEAST as vile and pernicious a belief to reside in the head of anyone, as the racist neighbor example.
If we think upon hearing our racist neighbor spout vile untruths about black people that “we should try educating this person out of such bad beliefs,” it makes just as much sense to loudly question even the purportedly “privately” held pernicious beliefs in religion. (Which, of course, aren’t really privately held at all).
(And few raised these issues better – challenging them loudly and directly – then Christopher Hitchens).
Vaal
And of course Hitchens followed Hannah Arendt, who identified an insidious capacity inherent in human nature: the ability of the individual to surrender innate human capacity to think objectively for themselves, instead permitting self to be completely absorbed into absolute obedience to, and complete identity immersion within, systematic ideological doctrine.
The Banality of Evil
?”
But to put the shoe on the other foot (always important to try to understand your opponents), that’s what we atheists seem like to them. We’ve rejected their standard of morality, their common shared belief. We are rather contemptuous of their belief that a god died for them… they see us as that person with poisonous ideas: “Maybe the atheist is outwardly a ‘good guy’ but he has motivations and values that we cannot trust”
This is what we as atheists are up against, and we need to be realistic about it.
I think this example illustrates that the focus of attention is on action, not thought. Opposing racist policies is important because they demonstrably have consequences on people. A thought locked up in someone’s opinion is toothless, and so long as it remains just a thought, it’s wrong to treat it as a thought crime and not leave them alone. At some point, you have to concede that some people are just going to be uninformed or nasty.
I concede that. I do not, however, concede that we therefore should not attempt to stop the idea from spreading, particularly to the ignorant (like children). It does not also follow from this that any means to prevent the spread is thereby allowed, either.
Yes, you’ve put your finger on the problematic tension in a straightforward reading of Grayling’s point — which would transform all religious debate and especially gnu atheism into unacceptable rudeness.
What is meant by “public domain?” If it means government and arguments about the law then yes indeed, it should remain wholly secular. Grayling is spot on.
But if it means public discourse — “out in public” — then religion ought to be treated like any other fact claims and argued and debated and savaged. The special treatment which allows it to pass as both a significant and foundational truth about the nature and purpose of reality and a “matter of private conviction and practice only” can’t be maintained. That’s an inherent contradiction. What happens instead is cultural approval of faith, any faith — and a taboo against criticism.
Government should “let people believe and behave as they wish provided they do no harm to others.” But the standards in the public realm of ideas are and should be higher than that. Truth matters. And the more importance placed on religion and spirituality, the more important it is to push back. Otherwise, as you point out we atheists are shooting ourselves in the foot.
By referencing the US Constitution the way he did, I think Grayling pretty clearly indicates that he’s talking about separation of government and religion.
“But... we may properly judge the church by what it did for centuries in circumstances where it could enforce its will, rather than by statements from civilized adherents in countries where it has largely lost the power to do so.” (George A. Wells, The Jesus Myth, p235)
Unfortunately, the retention of Bush’s execrable Office of Faith Based Initiatives was a disgusting decision made by Obama even before his first election.
It was,indeed.
Obama is a faith-head whom the people of Lebanon and their ilk would dearly love, if only his skin contained a few micrograms less melanin.
Christians will never read that much – they would rather remain in their benighted ignorance. I would say ‘Mediaeval’ but that would be to insult the good people of the Middle Ages who just knew no better.
You’ll probably find that AC Grayling is some goddam Brit. He probably has bad teeth & doesn’t endorse Open Carry, so you can safely ignore him.
… at your peril!
/@
Thanks for this useful quotation & link. Sigh. It never ends.
It’s like the Christians who say they don’t follow all the rules contained in the old testament. With their cherry picking to remain mkoderates they leave the door open for the Evangelising Christians who can re-instate those dreadful verses to control the non religious or those of other religions. Something the Muslims are currently doing worldwide!Could be a Prunus...... flowering cherry.
I don't know what it is, but from the way it is breaking from the maim stem I think you have a brute there, I think it will be a huge thing in time.
It'll grow very wide, if you let it. Should you want to prune it, don't take out stems that are over 8 cm in diameter, as these will start to rot away quite easily. Prunus' should be pruned in late Summer to prevent Silver Leaf.Close X
Radius Garden 100 Trowel
Be the first to write a review
