Links With Your Coffee - Monday
- Atheists -- naughty and nice -- should define themselves
I was somewhat taken aback recently when I found myself on a list of "kinder, gentler atheists"--most of them women--compiled by a religious historian attempting to distinguish between socially acceptable atheism and the presumably mean, hard-line atheism expounded by such demonic figures as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett. This nasty versus nice dichotomy is wholly an invention of believers who are under the mistaken impression that atheism is a religion in need of a good schism.
- Neil Gaiman to write Dr Who episode
The author of novels including Coraline and Anansi Boys told fans they could expect to see the episode in early 2011
- Causation, Correlation and Sport Science
- Palin’s Runny, Run-On Sentences Finally Explained
WEARING RATIONALITY BADGES, POPULARIZING NEUTRALITY AND SAYING "I DON'T KNOW" TO POLITICS: COLIN MARSHALL TALKS TO ECONOMIST, BLOGGER AND RATIONALIST ROBIN HANSON
Comments
You might this one:
The power of the pentatonic scale
Damn thanks for that.
I can't figure out where to order my badge :)
rationally speaking, i don't need to wear clothes most of the year where i live, so i'm trying to figure out where to PIN my badge. :)
mr. hanson is very impressive. in a cursory reading of his interview here i couldn't find a single thing to disagree with. does this make me rational according to him? i hope so.
at any rate, thanks, norm. you're always introducing me to interesting people i wouldn't have me otherwise.
RE: Atheists Defined
In ditching religion (my story) and coming to atheism, there were a lot of things to disassociate from religion and re-map to my life without the insanity. Mapping these things to 'atheism' is retarded, because it's a non-religion. What I ended up doing was mapping them to different secular institutions. Community service and ritual = martial arts, prayer = meditation and manners, the 'wow' of big questions = science and math, philosophical discussion on the 'big' questions = blogs and friends. Again, the false assumption is that religion is the reason for humans to do these things, rather than the truth that religion co-opted elements of human nature masking them as religion's creations. The religious person is trained to see the world as disorder that only the a religion can make sense of. They are so trapped by the allure of an all encompassing organizing principle that they try to impose that form onto atheism (or science). They think that having a one stop shop for the full range of the human experience it's as important to human life as air and water.
When really, it's just that they have lazy brains.
hi t.p. good to see you again. didn't understand this:
the "lazy brains" thing applies to lots of people, of many different religions and including atheists. as i've argued elsewhere on this blog, i think this is a problem with the relationship to authority, not "religion" or "education" itself. and you are postulating here that it's...what, exactly? i mean, plenty of people here think science and rationality are a "one stop shop". i see you are not one of them but still, can you be a little clearer? i'm trying to understand what you're saying it sounds like it might be interesting.
I'm trying to make the claim that religion attempts to make some inherent human traits a result of believing in the religion. Much like horoscopes are just a wide range of standard human emotions then cut up and distributed so that when people act like human beings, they can have an excuse to say why they acted that way. The creep of religion is to work it's way into a role as the starting point for all things human, or in some cases all things that 'good' humans do. The Catholics like to work over the standard traits of guilt, sin, etc. to then make the argument that when you do another standard human thing, altruism, it's because 'Jesus' was working through you. Just like horoscope nuts like to say things like; "I did it because I'm a Leo." It becomes very convenient to organize one's life around such constructs because it removes the need to critically think about why you are doing what you are doing.
So when people tell the religious they Atheist, the religious search for how that becomes a central organizing principle of their lives. Since having organizing principles is necessary because you can't critically think through every decision you make; Having only ONE CENTRAL organizing principle is why I call it a 'lazy brain'. Instead of constantly trying to develop better ways for interpreting the world throughout your life, many people want to 'get it' and never have to think things trough again.
Thanks for taking the interest. I'm trying to work through the concept myself.
Apologies for anything, 3 wine glasses deep (and 2 shots)
hmm, thanks. it sounds a bit "chicken or the egg" i think. i mean, am i religious because i rode a horse all the way from the south of france to conquer jerusalem in the 11th century, or did i ride a horse...etc."
still, the stuff you're talking about is stuff i i find interesting to think about, and i certainly don't claim any full understanding, so thanks for this.
Post a comment