Grant Rants

Archive for the ‘atheism’ Category

The stupid it burns: anti-vampireism and bald as a hair colour edition

- May 14th, 2012

Greetings heathens, zealots, web denizens, and the rest of you!

Ok, I have some ranty mojo brewing today and I’m in need of a target. Fortunately, the world is a big place with more stupid than it is possible to catalog, and it was easy enough to find one. Just up the highway in fact. In Toronto, that mythical center of the known universe.

Specifically, a column by rabbi Dow Marmur, who evidently doesn’t like us heathens very much.  The problem with we atheists, he says in a meandering column in the Toronto Star, is that we are pretty much like jihadists:

I’ve, therefore, consistently refused to engage in debates with atheists. They may consider me a cowardly man of little faith who’s afraid of exposing himself to the truth, but impartial observers will know that contemporary atheists are often even more fanatical than religious fundamentalists. Their zeal seems to know no bounds.

Interesting. Last time I checked, the most fanatical religious fundamentalists in North America try to have their dogmatic nonsense taught in science classes and are obsessed with telling women what they can do with their bodies, including a hilarious Republican bill that passed recently in Arizona that defined pregnancy as starting two weeks before conception. (no, that is not a punch line.) In even more extreme cases in North America, Europe, and of course, the middle east, the fundamentalist set is busy killing other people, often using that delightful method employed by the truly deluded, suicide bombing.

Atheists write books and blogs.thestupiditburns Oh, the horror, the horror.

He Marmur points to Alian de Botton’s weird newish book Religion for Atheists, where in de Botton says he wants to build atheist temples, as some manner of evidence that atheism itself is becoming a religion (which is why we are worse than the worst religious fundamentalists….you know without the bombs and such) and in fact, heathens have “religion-envy.”

Ok, look, first de Botton strange book was greeted with disinterest by the atheist community, such as it even exists, and the most anyone could say about it was “uh, what?”

It’s true, there are atheists who seem to want to ape the group cohesion provided by most religions, but it’s an attitude I’ve always found puzzling. It’s why I don’t belong to any skeptic/atheist/humanist groups nor go to regular meetings. I don’t have any need to get together with people to talk about what I don’t believe in. I tend to, this rant notwithstanding, focus my commentary in his regard on attempts to breach the wall between church and state, or religious attempts to undermine basic freedoms like freedom of speech, or attempts to win converts by stealth (like the ongoing efforts of the Gideons to be given access to elementary public school children.) But sit around and talk about why I don’t believe in the existence of gods? Zzzzzz. Please. I’d almost rather watch Glee.

Marmur’s entire argument crumbles because it starts with a false premise. He treats atheism as though it’s a thing like Christianity or Scientology or Jedism something. The tacit assumption he makes is that atheism is a complete philosophical entity, with dogmas, and rules and holy books and, I would guess, priests or clerics or some sort that one obeys. And uses this argument as he defends the excesses and violence of religion:

Because religion is articulated and administered by human beings, it often falls short of its stated ideals — just like atheism.

Really? Really, Rabbi Marmur? And what ideals are those exactly? Where do I find them? Where, in the name of Zeus’ holy toga, do I find the “stated ideals” of atheism?

Look man, atheism is barely a thing at all. All atheism is just not believing in a god or gods. Period. QED. End of frakkin’ story. The only reason we have a name for it at all is because historically everyone around us has been totally hell bent for leather on this whole god business.

I mean, even the name “atheism” is pretty stupid because it dignifies the thing that it denies. Look, I don’t believe in vampires or big foot either, right? But there is no need to run about calling myself am “anosferatuist,” or an “asasquatchist,” is there. The bottom line is that atheism is a religion like bald is a hair colour. The “ism” at the end makes it all sound fancy, I guess, but it isn’t.

I pretty well agree with Neil deGrasse Tyson on this front when he says “at the end of the day I’d rather not be any category at all.”

Even the so called “atheist community” is a disjointed lot that is only bound by the disbelief in the supernatural and generally shared respect for science, evidence and reason. There is also some broad agreements on the values of democracy, freedom of speech and the like. Beyond that, it is pretty well, to use the cliche, like herding cats. Disagreements abound. Yes, Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, PZ Myers and a few others are the most public and well known of the so called “New Atheists” (which is only new by the authors refusal to shut up when told.) but they constantly disagree. Tyson and Dawkins’s disagree over how to talk about science and religion in popular culture. Myers recently took Harris to task over issues of racial profiling at airports. And I’ve lost track of how many non-believers were sharply critical of Hitchen’s views on the Iraq war.

But I am sure Marmur will tell us where in that mess there are the “ideals” of atheism. Or is that the sound of cricket’s chipping?

About the only thing that Marmur gets right is that religion allows people to form a community of believers and atheism doesn’t do this. Well, yes. So what? De Botton’s goofy book aside, how is that supposed to an argument against atheism, or put more correctly, for religion? Does it demonstrate the existence of a god? Because that is what it would take, son. That pesky thing call evidence sort of matters.

Ultimately, Marmur’s entire argument seems to boil down to the idea that religion makes you feel good, and atheism doesn’t. I suppose that could be right. Atheism provides no guidebook, no bromide of any sort. Attempts to make it do so are as foolish as attempting to grasp quicksilver. To me, not having that kind of crutch is freeing. Yes, life can be miserable. It can suck. It will, as Rocky says. “beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently  if you let it.”

Speaking only for myself, I would rather harden myself to deal with it than rely on help that isn’t there because it makes me feel good to believe there is. I would rather deal with life as it is, honestly, and be miserable than to cling to some manner of false hope. If atheism is a thing at all, it’s living life on your own terms, taking the awful and the good as they come.

The stupid, it burns: converting the heathens edition

- July 26th, 2011

Greetings heathens, zealots, web denizens and the rest of you!

There are some things that one has to accept, if not particularly like, as a “public” atheist. That is to say, someone who talks about atheism in a public forum – even someone with a modest audience like myself – just has to accept some things unavoidable. Near that top of that list are attempts by believers to convert you.

Nearly every month, at least one brave soul (if you’ll excuse the phrase) sends me an email or letter trying to convert me to their version of Christianity. (I’ve never had a Muslim or Jewish or Scientology believer send me a letter, oddly, even though I’ve taken aim at all of those religions.)

What is staggering about it all is that each and ever letter writer seems to think they have come up with some new argument that I’ve never heard before. These run the gambit between the plain burning stupid (“You have a Jesus shaped hole in your heart” No I don’t) to the ignorant (“you are just rebelling against god!” No I’m not) to the somewhat sophisticated (“have you considered the cosmological argument?” Yes I have.)

Of course, I have not heard a new and convincing reason to become a religious believer in more than 20 years. I’ve heard it all. I’ve considered it all. None of it matters. In fact most atheists who think about these things have heard all these arguments multiple times, from multiple people.

That they don’t hold water with us because of their complete inability to demonstrate the truth of faith claims doesn’t seem to stop anyone though. This article from the National Catholic Register was emailed to me on Monday. In it,  Jennifer Fulwiler claims that she has five Catholic arguments that will “make sense” to atheists and thus, turn us in to good little Catholics. The person who sent it to me really thought Fulwiler had “slammed dunked” atheism…

To say she falls flat on her face on the first “argument” is an understatement. You know, like saying that Glee is an abomination. Sure, that’s accurate, but it just never seems to go far enough.

The first argument that will make sense to me as an atheist lead me to the doors of the Vatican? Purgatory.

For those who did not have the happy-joy-joy experience of going to Catholic school like I did and are unfamiliar with the concept, purgatory is basically like god’s waiting room. After you die, if you were not that a godly a person but not enough of a schmuck to get sent to the basement to toast marshmallows,  you get sent to the waiting room. Like a time out. You wait for a couple of eons and then you get to heaven. Basically it’s like waiting to update your driver’s license at the MTO. You’d eventually get to the front of the line, it will just seem to take several life times.

Of course, the idea of purgatory has been part of one of the greatest con-jobs in history – the Catholic indulgence. In the middle ages the Vatican had a cash flow problem, so cooked up this idea to sell certificates called indulgences that were, in effect, get out of purgatory free card. The more you spent, the more time you’d get off your postmortem sentence in limbo. Really it was the predecessor today’s miracle cure, snake oil salesmen and faith healers, and the practice was one of the things that really irritated Martin Luther, whose criticisms of the Vatican kicked off the Reformation.

Anyway, getting back to the matter at hand, I have to point out the irony of a Catholic trying to convince an atheist to become a believer by referencing a belief in a supernatural waiting room. So for those of you who think this woman is on to something and will try to use this line of crazy “reasoning” let me explain to you a couple things that might help.thestupiditburns

So an atheist doesn’t believe a god or gods exist, right? I mean, that is what being an atheist IS. So if I don’t believe god exists, why would someone blathering on about limbo convince me of anything? It’s like when believers try to convince me by claiming the devil is going to get me. Again, if I don’t think your god exists, why oh why would you think that I’m going to be frightened by your boogie man in red pajamas?

Tip to Miss Fulwiler – NONE of your five arguments make sense to an atheist. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. You can talk all you want about a loving sky god, or the communion of saints or the pope’s fashion sense or whatever. None of it going to get you anyplace with an atheist unless you can first do one thing: demonstrate with evidence that your faith claims regarding the existence of god are true. QED. If you cannot do that, you aren’t getting any place with the heathen.

The Blonde Nonbeliever blog has a pretty good break down of what these conversations are like from the point of view of, well, a nonbeliever. Worth a read.

The stupid, it burns: Facebook vs. my sanity edition

- July 11th, 2011

Greetings heathens, zealots, web denizens and the rest of you!

I’m convinced that Facebook is waging some kind of psychological warfare on me. It’s relentless. Merciless. It stops at nothing to inflict upon me the hottest, fiery burning stupid it can possibly create.

It will come as no surprise to anyone that  Facebook is an epic domain of the burning stupid in a way that can eclipse even Glee.  It’s staggering what you can find on there if you spend a few minutes looking. I mean it’s common place to see a couple having it out in series of posts and the whole time you are thinking “why aren’t you two having this conversation IN PERSON. We’re not cyborgs yet!” (Although the robot apocalypse is surely coming.)

Then there is the guy who took a woman hostage, had the police outside, and posted about the whole thing on Facebook until he finally was arrested. First off, everyone knows that Twitter is really the more effective forum for this sort of thing and two, just how far gone do you have to be? Bad enough you took someone hostage and shot at police, but you are going to document the entire thing in public? Criminals are stupid.thestupiditburns

But the serious assaults launched upon my brain by Facebook comes in a much more subtle fashion, mostly from the ads that frequently vie for your attention on the right hand side of the screen. Facebook must use some kind of algorithm to place “personalized” ads. Like if you were constantly posting stuff about, say, how much you love Glee, you would always see ads about the Heart of Darkness and brain damage. In my case, I get carpet bombed with ads about religion.

This is because, I suppose, I often post links to stuff by Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins and the like. Atheist stuff. You know, cause I’m an atheist. In the warped mind of the Facebook adbots, this means I must want to buy religious stuff. It’s like if you posted a lot of stuff about the Beatles, and then got lots of ads about buying Glee CDs. You’d just want to pull your hair out.

I get ads for the oxymoronically named “Liberty University” – the outfit started by Jerry Falwell that regards evolution as affront to their religion – faith healers, psychic fairs, and Muslim dating websites. (I know, I was surprised those existed too.)

But this latest one takes the cake. I defy anyone to explain what in Odin’s empty eye socket this is supposed to be selling. Take a look:

CrazyasYup. They are selling a “blessed divine mercy quantum pendant” PLUS the science of wellness energy for life! Not to vent about this, but that is that even supposed to be? It’s totally meaningless. You just strung together a bunch of words, you jerks!

It’s like I could sell “Thor’s Mango Singularity Bracelet + Science of Quasar Cooking” I mean, what? How damaged would your brain have to be to think that meant anything?

Also curious is the price point. Apparently this blessed quantum pendant is normally worth $200. I can only surmise that it is initially constructed using the CERN particle accelerator in Geneva and then shipped to the Pope to be blessed. Hence the 200 clams they would usually ask. But NO! For a limited time you can buy this insane junk meant for suckers pendant for the low low price of $29! I guess quantum powered knick knacks just don’t sell like they used to.

I actually decided to check out the website in the ad, mostly because I must be into self abuse. In a completely bizarre video, they claim that these pendants were made using volcanic lava (as opposed to the other kinds of lava one can find on every street corner, I guess.) and will protect your family using something called “scalar energy.” (scalar fields are part of quantum theory in physics, although never observed in nature, contrary what the snake oil pendant sales folks will tell you.) If you Google it, you’ll all manner of loony references to scalar bracelets and pendants and whatever.

It’s really no different than those insipid Q-Ray Bracelets. Remember those? The hideous bracelets with teeny magnets in them that was supposed to cure all that ails you? You can still find infomericals about them from time to time, although they no longer contain specific claims about health and wellness because Health Canada told them stop. Turns out, you just cannot run about making health claims about something that does absolutely nothing. If only Health Canada would crack down on the homeopaths and Feng Shui peddlers too.

Anyway, the point being that if you are ever considering buying a super blessed, quantum scalar amazing health wellness Thor’s mango pendant…don’t. It’s just junk and has nothing to with science, or health, or wellness, or mangos.

Look there is a basic rule I have about people who start talking about quantum mechanics. It’s a very complex and confusing science. There aren’t many people who understand it and those that do tend to be highly educated brainiac types. Your average Joe Slob, like you and me, don’t understand it. We cannot even really come close to understanding it unless we decide to really invest time in serious physics education. So when you hear someone start talking about quantum physics in relations to jewelry, or spirits, or religion or whatever, just throw a pie in their face. It’s like the physicist Richard Feyman once said: “if you think you understand quantum theory, you don’t understand quantum theory.”

Fighting the unwinnable argument, Hitchens stands tall

- April 28th, 2011

Last week, one of my intellectual heroes, Christopher Hitchens told the world he has lost his voice to esophageal cancer. He fights on, he says in his letter, but recognizes his long argument with “the specter of death” is one he, and no one else, ever wins. The letter is pretty amazing stuff, showing true courage of character in what must be a very difficult time. It’s worth reading, trust me.

And since he is lost his voice, I thought it fitting to present the Hitch at his best. Here’s hoping he can recover:

The Hitch: the world will be a much smaller place when he is gone

- March 8th, 2011

Finally a religion that really ties the room together

- February 9th, 2011

This is a very complicated case, Maude. You know, a lotta ins, a lotta outs, a lotta what-have-yous. And, uh, a lotta strands to keep in my head, man. Lotta strands in old Duder’s head. Fortunately, I’m adhering to a pretty strict, uh, drug regimen to keep my mind, you know, uh, limber.  -The Dude

For anyone who has followed my work it comes as no surprise that I am not a exactly an ardent fan of religion. Have this aversion to accepting things without evidence, something that is a virtue in many religions. Thomas, I have argued elsewhere, had it right when he demanded some proof before he believed.

poster

The Dude Abides

Combine my distaste for the irrational with the abuses of power of religious organizations that purport to be the guiding light of the species….well, I’ll put it this way, it was a long road but several years ago I left faith in the rubbish bin with the disco and 1980s Transformers movie. (Have you seen that? It’s so bad, it might be worse than Glee.) Maybe as things go on, I might blog a bit more about letting go of religion…but that is, you know, just my opinion man.  Because I may have found a religion that really ties the room together.

I give you the Dudeism. Or Duderonomy. The Dude De Ching. Or the Church of the Latter-Day Dude if  you are not into the whole brevity thing.

This is an act of unmitigated brilliance. A religion based on the Big Lebowski. And if you have never seen this movie, well grab your bowling ball and get a life.

Of particular interest here is the list of commandments – well more like suggestions because, like, you just gotta take it easy man – that Dudeism promotes. The traditional ten commandments are downers, man. Don’t do this, don’t do that, worship me or else….it’s all so depressing and grim. But the text of Duderonomy, well, shoosh, it’s just the thing to allow a dude to abide. Here is a sampling:

Book 1:

1. Thou shalt always use fresh creamer when preparing the sacramental beverage. To ensure its freshness, it must be sniffed and even sampled before purchase. If it is unclean, put it back.

2. Ideally half-and-half shall be used in preparing the sacramental beverage. Failing this, milk, and under the most dire of circumstances, non-dairy creamer.

5. When discussing a matter of grave importance, or even of trifling idiocy, always make sure to employ expletives as much as possible to prove your heartfelt honesty and conviction. To ensure your dudeness, all out-of-control, manic discussions should be followed with entreaties to “just take it easy, man.”

10. When confronted by a large man with a gun who demands you mark it zero, oblige him. Otherwise you risk entering a world of pain. Ideally he will get his comeuppance from the League for contravening a number of its bylaws.

From Book 2:

5. Respect everyone’s point of view. It’s just, like, their opinion, man.

6. Always remember interesting turns of phrase that you hear so that you can employ them in completely unrelated situations later and convincingly sound as if you know what you’re talking about.

Words to live by, I think. The dude abides.

The stupid, it burns: Dr. Sandman and Evil Germans edition

- January 24th, 2011

Greetings heathens, zealots, web denizens and the rest of you!

So Monday is, for the most part, the most craptacular day of the week. If I ever find the guy who invented Monday, I am going to kick his butt so hard his breath will smell like shoe polish. Bad enough I woke up this morning to find a massive water main break on my street that cut me off from having any water all, but then I read this mind stunning piece about the Giffords shooting in the United States. Read it, but I warn you, it might make you dumber.

According to this, um, well lets call him a “therapist” to be charitable, the blame for the shooting of Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and others lays not with the fact that the shooter Jared Loughner is mentally ill. No, this guy “Kevin Root, licensed clinical social worker, a Cos Cob-based psychotherapist trained at the Carl Jung Institute with 25 years of experience helping people understand their dreams” places the blame at the feet of  Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche.

He was nothing but disconnected to both personal and archetypal father. His hero was Nietzsche, the father of nihilism, who, we all know, is famous for announcing that “God is dead.” Nietzsche may also be viewed, as I do, as the father of terrorism, since he killed God (the father archetype par excellence) and everything that he represents.

So there you go. It’s that damn Nietzsche’s fault because he said god is dead. And, since he said that, he gave birth to terrorism. Well, kick me in the pants and call me Suzie, if only Kevin Root had been around to explain this to us after 9-11! Think of it! If we could only get copies of Beyond Good and Evil and The Gay Science out of the hands of the followers of Osama Bin Ladin, we could end terrorism! I mean, clearly, most terrorists have a firm grounding in Nietzsche’s work, right? I never did trust those philosophy majors in university. They all seemed a bit sketchy.

Well, forgive me for doubting a dream analyst here – because if you want find an expert on mental illness, crime and philosophy the first place to go is to a dream analyst – but I gotta call BS on this.

Root’s entire line of thinking here is simply a gussied up version of what Fredric Wertham was on about back in the 1950s when he said that reading comic books made young people violent. He would quote statistics (just like our friend Root does) without any particular context and then exclaim “ah ha!
Like Wertham would say that something like 60 per cent of teenaged boys in juvenile prison read comics, so therefore comics were the cause of the behavior that put them there. But, as Stan Lee often points out, those 60 per cent of teenaged boys also drank milk, but Wertham did not declare a causative effect there. Simply spouting off stats or ideas without evidence gets you nowhere.

Which brings us to Root. His idea is that because Nietzsche said “god is dead” and Loughner apparently read it, Loughner became disconnected with a sky daddy and shot Giffords and a bunch of other people. Also, Nietzsche created terrorism because not believing in god is bad mojo:

If there’s not an assumption that God is alive, there’s nothing to fear or to aspire to. If there’s no connection to a personal father or a spiritual father, then all hell breaks loose. Added to this is the violent imagery so prevalent today in video games, TV, movies, etc. that disaffected youth engage in.

This is burning stupid on two fronts. First, Root’s understand of Nietzsche is exceedingly poor. You often see this among religionists who want to paint atheists as evil. “If you are an atheist you have to believe in Nietzsche,” they’ll say. “And Nietzsche said god was dead and that morality is dead. So if you believe god is dead, then you don’t have morals and can justify anything.”

517px-Portrait_of_Friedrich_Nietzsche

Kevin Root couldn't carry Freddy's jock strap.

Of course, this is only sort of what Nietzsche was on about.  Nietzsche, being an atheist, didn’t think god had “died” in any real sense. Well he wouldn’t would he? Something that doesn’t exist cannot die. He was talking about god, particularly the Christian idea of it in Europe, as having died in a metaphorical sense. He saw in the Christian ethic something weak and corrupt that ultimately crushed the human spirit. The increasing secular ideas of Europe had, in effect, “killed” Christianity – that is to say, killed god.

But, and this is what Nietzsche saw as the essential problem, Christianity had defined morality and virtue for over a thousand years. So while it may have been the vehicle of a corrupt morality, at least it had a morality. The society that had killed god, Nietzsche thought, had not replaced it with anything else. In other words, getting rid of Christianity was all well and good, but you had to then build a new morality and a new virtue otherwise you fall into a chasm of nihilism.

This is the other side of Nietzsche’s ideas that people like Root simply cannot be bothered to read. My suspicion is that haven’t actually read Nietzsche at all. The old German created a metaphor for the creation of new morality. He called it the Ubermensch – the overman or the superman. (which has nothing to do with either the superhero or Nazi ideas of the ideal human.) The Ubermensch is to create  new, life affirming values, and break the chains of slavery that Christianity created.

Nietzsche didn’t say, as Root and others would suggest, that god is dead and life sucks so ransack and kill because really, who cares. Nietzsche’s work is complex and asks deep questions about what we believe and why we believe it. Loughner was probably incapable of digesting any of this and to say that these ideas are the source of an assassination attempt on a U.S. politician or terrorism itself is asinine.

The second place Root goes badly wrong is in this assumption that if you don’t believe in a god, if you don’t believe this is a father in the sky watching you (why, I wonder, does Root insist the 24/7 eye in the sky has to be male?) you don’t believe in anything and you cannot aspire to anything. Really? Really Dr. Sandman? I cannot aspire to anything because I don’t believe in a god?

The fact is that atheists, like everyone else, have hopes and dreams about their lives, their families, for their communities and country. Wanting to live in a eternal theme park after death, or believing in an eternal dictatorship just isn’t part of it. They are concerned with the here and now and those who come after us, never mind of hereafters.

Root, by making the staggeringly poor assumption that you need a god to be a good person, has failed to understand that Loughner is a mentally ill person and if there was any failure by anyone along the way, then it’s that the mental health system failed to recognize and help this guy before he did something drastic. It’s not about 19th century German philosophy or political rhetoric. It is about mental illness and crime.

Oh, and for those of you say  that Root is still right, that you need a god to see beauty and hope and aspire for a better tomorrow, I give you the late, great Carl Sagan – a dreamer, scientist and visionary who very clearly aspired to many great and noble things and didn’t believe for a moment that a god was part the picture. If this doesn’t give you chills or bring a tear to your eye, if you will forgive an atheist saying so, you have no soul:

Apparently I’m religious! Also, I rode a unicorn to work

- January 17th, 2011

Far be it from me to fire a shot across the bow of one of Sun Media’s competitors….oh heck of course I am going to do that! All the better that an article that qualifies as the stupid that burns was written by a local St. Catharines bloke.

The article in question comes from the National Post, written by a St. Catharines preacher by the name of Paul Miller. I haven’t met him, but being as charitable as I can,  I’ll say that Mr. Miller is badly misguided. Not being charitable at all, I’ll say he is more wrong than a 24 hour Glee Marathon hosted by Justin Beiber…Bieber….you know, the goofy kid with the whiny voice who stole Paul McCartney’s hair circa 1965? That one.

Miller’s rant is all about how we non-believers are really religious. No, that was not a typo. Apparently having NO religion is the same as having religion:

I’m wondering if that’s why I find that many atheists sound so much like the religious types they despise. I’m not talking about everyone who doubts or denies the existence of God. I mean the noisy, public atheists from the celebrity authors to the army of busy little bloggers who spread the gospel of freedom from religion with missionary zeal….The more I hear from the atheists, the more they seem to me like the mirror image of their adversaries.

Ah, ok, we get it. It’s ok if you are an atheist who keeps his or her trap shut. But the moment you say something, you are loud, noisy and part of a missionary army. This is a common and low brow criticism of those the religionists  (Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris etc) to go away. Everything was fine and dandy when the only people permitted to talk about morals, ethics, and the evidence for the supernatural were those who spoke from the pulpit. So long as THAT missionary army was the one who had a monopoly on public discourse, it was ok. Not so much when the loyal opposition dares pipe up.

What Miller doesn’t get is that taking part in the conversation doesn’t make one religious or religious like. It’s taking part in a public conversation, one in which non-believers were derided as immoral and soulless for a very long time. But Miller continues:

Like their religious opponents, this kind of atheist is not only ignorant of the other side, but wilfully so. On the religious side, this ignorance takes the form of “God said it, I believe it, that settles it;” on the atheist side, “Religion is stupid. What’s to know?” Their knowledge of the other is not a deep appreciative knowledge, but the “knowledge” of the polemicist who is only concerned with what is useful for belittling and attacking.

You know, my best friend’s mother used to say “a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.” Miller should listen to her.

The atheists are “willfully ignorant” of religion? Facts matter Mr. Miller, and the facts are not on your side. Certainly there are atheists who have all the brain power of a hamster and that’s because atheists and religionists, are HUMAN. And humans can be unbelievably foolish. However, what recent data  has shown is that in fact atheists know more about religion than many religious people. The reason is pretty straight forward I think. Most atheists, at least those who have thought about it, were brought up in a religious environment of one type or another. The path from believer to atheist typically involves a lot of questions, a lot of exploring the nooks and crannies of religion before coming out the other end.thestupiditburns

Never mind that the “religious is dumb, hahaha. atheitz rulez” view that Miller puts into the mouths of the “celebrity writers” he cannot stand is manifestly not the view of these writers. Find me anyone of them who makes that argument. I dare you.

Makes one wonder if he has read Dawkins or Hitchens or even the late, great Bertrand Russel. Most of these criticism of religion comes from one of two places. First, is there evidence to support the claim of the existence of a god? If not (as there isn’t) then we can dismiss the idea until such evidence is forthcoming. Second, is the moral vision promoted by a religion actual moral or not? When it comes to issues like sex, science, justice and a few others, religion is often found wanting. A “deep appreciative knowledge” in Miller’s universe appears to imply a knowledge that is uncritical. Sorry, but religion like politics and art and everything else, doesn’t get a free pass.

Consequently, like their religious adversaries, they oversimplify vast and complex phenomena – by, for example, putting all religious convictions on the same level as belief in leprechauns.

This is where Miller is falling right off the rails. From a purely scientific point of view, one can ask a simple question: is there evidence for the existence of your particular god or not? If the answer to that is “No” what then is the substantive difference between believing in a leprechaun and believing in a god? I mean, most Christians and Muslims will be happy enough to tell you that belief in, say, Thor is pretty silly. I mean, we know the thunder is not caused by a red-headed Nordic god and his magic hammer. But it’s not so ridiculous to the believer in that god and his hammer is it? The only reason Miller can say belief in leprechauns is silly is because he doesn’t believe in them. When he understands why he thinks a belief in leprechauns isn’t supported by evidence, he’ll understand why an atheist will say the same about his chosen deity.

And it keeps on getting worse.

Except that if someone says that homosexuality is an abomination in the sight of God, he can be accused of hate speech; while, when Dawkins muses that parents should be charged with child abuse for teaching religion to their children, he is feted by the CBC.

The problem here is that isn’t what Dawkins said. Dawkins thinks that teaching children that they belong to an in group that knows the “truth” based on religion while others do not because they are part of another group when said child is far, far too young to be able to decide such things for themselves is abusive. At no point does he ever say, and he has made this clear repeatedly, that parents who teach their children religion should be arrested. Nice try, Miller.

He saves his biggest gaff for last, however, with this gem:

Militant unbelievers share with militant believers the conviction that there is room in this world for only one view of truth – theirs.

“Militant” unbelievers. This is a common refrain from some religious quarters. Atheists are “militant” or “fundamentalists” and therefore the same as military or fundamentalists believers. Militant religious believers have done things like shoot abortion doctors, blow up buildings and crash passenger jets into sky scrappers and try to deny their fellow citizens civil rights.  So called “militant” atheists have written books and blogs. Totally the same thing. Asking for evidence and questioning claims made from faith, which are claims without evidence, is exactly the same as, say, a cleric issuing a bounty against someone for writing a book, isn’t it?

The stupid, it burns.