There is no such thing as a thoughtful conversation on the internet (present company excepted; all generalizations subject to correction by particular examples which largely and unfortunately prove the rule).
Case in point, from a Salon article about "Atheist TV" (which sounds perfectly dreadful from a simple marketing standpoint; similar to M.M. O'Hare's efforts on Austin cable public access when she was alive. But almost none of the comments dwell on that subject). The opening comment is by Jegudiel:
What is modern atheism?
Modern atheism is a moderately intelligent person hearing elevator muzak renditions of für Elise and the Mondscheinsonate and then deciding that Beethoven wasn't very good at making music.
And because that person has the intellectual wherewithal to understand that elevator muzak isn't very good, he now knows that he is better at musicology than everybody else, Beethoven included. In fact, because elevator muzak is rubbish, he decides that all of classical music is a colossal waste of time for the tasteless and feeble-minded; a person of taste and intelligence couldn't possibly dedicate himself to such drivel, and therefore, by renouncing elevator muzak, he is eo ipso smarter than anybody who likes, plays or composes classical music.
He is so thunderstruck by this realisation which in an instant has elevated him above all those fools that now he feels the physical need to show up at concert halls, musicology lectures, piano lessons et al and shout at everybody there how amazingly daft they are for liking such rubbish, and how smart he is because knows that elevator muzak is bad. He is now an expert and a scholar on all things musical simply because he was smart enough to be bored in an elevator. And since no one likes being bored by bad muzak, he now joins the righteous cause to have all classical music banned. Because reason.
Mr Dawkins correctly says that priests should not teach biology. As a scholar of philosophy, I would kindly ask biology teachers to extend philosophy and theology the same courtesy.
Modern atheism is a moderately intelligent person hearing elevator muzak renditions of für Elise and the Mondscheinsonate and then deciding that Beethoven wasn't very good at making music.
And because that person has the intellectual wherewithal to understand that elevator muzak isn't very good, he now knows that he is better at musicology than everybody else, Beethoven included. In fact, because elevator muzak is rubbish, he decides that all of classical music is a colossal waste of time for the tasteless and feeble-minded; a person of taste and intelligence couldn't possibly dedicate himself to such drivel, and therefore, by renouncing elevator muzak, he is eo ipso smarter than anybody who likes, plays or composes classical music.
He is so thunderstruck by this realisation which in an instant has elevated him above all those fools that now he feels the physical need to show up at concert halls, musicology lectures, piano lessons et al and shout at everybody there how amazingly daft they are for liking such rubbish, and how smart he is because knows that elevator muzak is bad. He is now an expert and a scholar on all things musical simply because he was smart enough to be bored in an elevator. And since no one likes being bored by bad muzak, he now joins the righteous cause to have all classical music banned. Because reason.
Mr Dawkins correctly says that priests should not teach biology. As a scholar of philosophy, I would kindly ask biology teachers to extend philosophy and theology the same courtesy.
@Jegudiel -- Yes, yes, it was obvious you're big into philosophy with all the Kierkegaard references. And while you are right that there are atheists out there who like to be smug, your analogy of the atheist-as-guy-who-hates-muzak-and-so-hates-all-Classical-music operates under the false premise that one can only be an atheist if one is steeped in the readings of whatever list of cool philosophers-- and that if you haven't read Nietzsche (did I spell that right?), then you're just a fake atheist.
Dawkins' comment about priests and biology was a reference to the evolution "debate" and not specifically about atheism. Moreover, the reverse demand that you make is lacking. Again: one doesn't have to be steeped in the writings of a dozen famous philosophers to arrive at the conclusion that a naturalistic explanation for the universe works just fine.
To be sure, there is something to be said for philosophy when asking questions about morality without god or various mental gymnastics that philosophers do (I dunno, CAN an all-powerful god create a boulder so heavy that he can't lift it?). But your insistence that anyone who isn't a "scholar of philosophy" is a fake atheist is unfounded.
Dawkins' comment about priests and biology was a reference to the evolution "debate" and not specifically about atheism. Moreover, the reverse demand that you make is lacking. Again: one doesn't have to be steeped in the writings of a dozen famous philosophers to arrive at the conclusion that a naturalistic explanation for the universe works just fine.
To be sure, there is something to be said for philosophy when asking questions about morality without god or various mental gymnastics that philosophers do (I dunno, CAN an all-powerful god create a boulder so heavy that he can't lift it?). But your insistence that anyone who isn't a "scholar of philosophy" is a fake atheist is unfounded.
@Lank @Jegudiel My point is that you can only critique something if you are familiar with it. If atheism is a school of thought, then yeah, you should have read some books by great atheists (no, Dawkins, not you) before proselytising its merits.
Nietzsche bloody HATED Christianity, but damned if he wasn't well versed in it. I mean, I think Ayn Rand is terrible and that people who worship her drivel should lose the right to vote, but that's because I actually read some of her books. How many "I believe in science" Dawkins fanboys have actually read Matthew, Acts, or Corinthians?
Nietzsche bloody HATED Christianity, but damned if he wasn't well versed in it. I mean, I think Ayn Rand is terrible and that people who worship her drivel should lose the right to vote, but that's because I actually read some of her books. How many "I believe in science" Dawkins fanboys have actually read Matthew, Acts, or Corinthians?
@Jegudiel Atheism isn't about spurning Christianity (or Islam or any other religion), it's about understanding that there are no gods, and one doesn't have to understand anything about religion at all to come to that conclusion.
Nothing in the universe and nothing about human existence, requires supernatural explanations; everything that is can be explained by natural causes.
Once one understands that nothing supernatural has ever occurred and that, therefore, there are no supernatural beings, it becomes obvious that all religion - indeed, all mysticism - arises from the way human brains try to make sense of things.
When I first tuned in at 2 p.m. on Thursday, the closing credits for a show were scrolling, set to a parody hymn that rhymed “Don’t be offended by a word to the wise” with “There’s no real estate in the skies.” Then, after several seconds of dead air, came a prerecorded call-in show called ”The Atheist Experience,” whose co-host Matt Dillahunty, wearing a black Hawaiian-style shirt decorated with flames and infinity symbols, needed no prompting to begin his show with the Biblical story of God asking Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. “This is just absolutely horrible,” said Dillahunty. “And it’s the type of thing we get when we begin with the idea that the Bible is true and good, and you run into absurdities.”By implication, that is what all the responses to the original comment are defending. And they defend it with the grace of hooting monkeys or drunken frat boys. And with about as much knowledge and reasoning.
What absurdities these were the viewer would have to fill in for himself; there was no extrapolation from this story in terms of what social ills have happened in the name of God, no sense that Dillahunty was bothered by people following the Bible for any reason other than that he thinks it’s nuts to rely on a book for wisdom and guidance. “I don’t worship any being,” he said, “though I respect a lot of people and a lot of fictional characters.”
“If you know why your God is so stupid,” he said, “feel free and call us.”
But remember, it's your God that is so stupid; not theirs.
Tell me again atheism isn't a religion. Tell me again how the internet, like television was supposed to do for my generation, will liberate us from ignorance and make us all equally knowledgeable.*
*yeah, I'm in a bad mood. Spent the weekend helping my parents move out of my childhood home, which I THOUGHT I'd moved out of almost 40 years ago. You can't go home again because you never really leave home, until it isn't there anymore. Got home with a round concrete block a birdbath had sat on (and the birdbath, too), with some soil from the backyard still attached. Got all weepy about it. Last vestige of home, and all that.
I'm pathetic.
No comments:
Post a Comment