HITCHSLAP: The process of utterly obliterating an opponent’s entire (usually religious or political) argument, usually in one or more succinct or terse statements, orally or in writing; employed almost exclusively by Christopher Hitchens.
No long intro into this today. Just the Hitch doing what he did.
Greetings web denizens, heathens, zealots and the rest of you!
So this week’s Grant Rant was about Savita Halappanavar, a dentist in Ireland who died because while her pregnancy was killing her and the fetus could not be saved, she was denied a life saving abortion on the grounds that Ireland is a Catholic country and abortion is wrong.
The reaction from some readers, as I have briefly noted, decided to take some shots at me rather than talk about the issue. Which is fine. It comes with the job. But the issue itself is, in fact, what matters. A spectrum of responses in the comments section to that column are worth taking a look at.
They all share one thing in common: they ignore the fact that a woman is dead and fall into two broad catagories: Abortion is always wrong and religion is never wrong. Here are two key ones worth exploring.
1) Abortions never save a mother’s life:
It seems pretty clear by the facts of the case that have been released thus far that had Halappanavar been granted the abortion, she would have survived. At least the odds of her survival would have risen dramatically. However, the religious pro-lifers make an argument that, medically speaking, no woman ever has been saved by an abortion. This is the argument put forward today in that silly publication, the Holy Post, by Andrea Mrozek who claims that good medical care saves lives and as medical care improves maternal mortality goes down and therefore no abortion has saved any woman, ever, anyplace.
Yes, thank you, Andrea Mrozek for pointing out that with better medical care few people die. So what? It has less than nothing to do with the case here. It’s a giant smelly red herring. The kind the Knights of Ni will ask you cut down the tallest tree in the forest with. The sad truth is that there are some medical conditions like preeclampsia and tubal pregnancies which, in some circumstances can only be resolved by ending the pregnancy. It’s awful, it’s grim but that is the facts. Fortunately they are not the norm, but they do happen. When they do, you cannot save the fetus. The only option is to save the mother or they both die. QED. At the point, those who want to make the argument that an abortion is NEVER necessary to save a woman have chosen to jump down the rabbit hole of faith thinking rather than deal with reality. And then people die.
2)The non-religious cannot make moral choices, like wanting to save Halappanavar.
This tortured argument goes like this: Saying Halappanavar should have been saved is a moral choice, and since morals cannot be decided by science, the desire to save her is a kind of faith thinking. Therefore, there is no grounds to say she should saved unless one accepts the morals of a religion, in this case, Catholicism.
This is in effect, the old moral argument for god which claims we cannot know right from wrong without divine warrant.
I think the first place to start to answer this one is from Christopher Hitchens, who demolishes the argument better than I can. It’s worth viewing the full interview. But I will say this. We know that our evolved faculties, including our ethical and moral impulses, are innate in us. They are not perfect, but they are there and are powerful. As social creatures we would not be able to even form the smallest groups that function if they didn’t. Choosing to guide one’s ethics by saying that that reducing or eliminating suffering is a worthy cause neither requires, nor is dependent upon, the guidance of an unseen hand. And science can indeed be a guide by providing us with a clearer view of reality. If morals and ethics can be seen, as they I think they can (and I tend to agree with Sam Harris on this point) about human well being, then science is a powerful tool to help us decide action.
What I have taken away from some of the visceral response to that column is that there is a spectrum of “pro-lifers” who hold human life very cheaply. The death of a woman is vastly less important to them that the often, I dare say, irrational defense of the mixture of theology and politics that lead to her demise. The faith is more important than life. Even though there was no saving the fetus in this case, no exception can be made, even though the consequence was obvious.
When belief in the supernatural trumps the hard facts on the ground, when they contribute the death of an innocent, something has gone very wrong. Those who defend this view, ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Greetings web denizens, heathens, zealots and the rest of you!
Came across this the other day, a video featuring Rudyard Kipling poem “If” which is one of my favorites of all time. Not much to say other than the poem, and the video, and all it represents gives me chills. Soak it in and tell me it doesn’t give you chills.
IF you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream – and not make dreams your master;
If you can think – and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ‘em up with worn-out tools:
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
‘ Or walk with Kings – nor lose the common touch,
if neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And – which is more – you’ll be a Man, my son!
Greetings web denizens, heathens, zealots and the rest of you!
So following up to part one of getting feedback on my latest Grant Rant, I did get emails from atheists who said, yes, organizing atheists is sometimes a challenge for charity and it’s an issue in the community, BUT it is happening.
By way of a for instance, take the B.C. Humanists which is raising money for cancer research and treatment. It’s good stuff. Check them out:
In a recent column [18 Oct 2012, Mere atheism isn't enough -- help your community] Grant LaFleche expressed a common frustration among atheist and Humanist organizations, that we keep getting beat at charity by the religious. Luckily, things are changing fast.
The Foundation Beyond Belief is a young American charity that is coordinating giving among non-believers. They have over 1200 donors and a network of over 2000 volunteers that are good without god.
Their current campaign has raised over $300,000 for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. Their goal is to raise $500,000, every dollar of which will be matched by The Stiefel Foundation. Here in Vancouver, members of the BC Humanist Association have raised over $3,500.
As the freethought community grows, it’s only a matter of time until we are able to match the capacity for giving that traditional religions have. Please join and support your local atheist or Humanist group today.
Ian Bushfield
Executive Director
BC Humanist Association
http://bchumanist.ca
Greetings web denizens, heathens, zealots and the rest of you!
So last week I wrote a Grant Rant column, calling my fellow non-believers to the mat for not getting involved enough in community based charities that needed support, like Gillian’s Place here in St. Catharines.
I’ve received quite a bit of feedback from that column, both from atheists saying they are trying to organize to help their communities (which I will write about in part two) and from some religious quarters who think atheists don’t give because well, they don’t buy into the whole god thing.
The following is a tad long (my apologies in advance) but worth a full discussion. The first is an email from a reader (name removed for the time being) and my reply. Enjoy:
Dear Mr. Lafleche:
I read your column with interest, but wanted to challenge you concerning the disciple Thomas getting rapped on his knuckles by “his boss”. For three years Jesus and his disciples travelled many miles together. During that time He taught them many things, one of them was that He would be killed and rise again. Thomas knew that, but his lack of faith made him doubt, even when the other disciples assured him that Jesus was alive. Thomas along with the other diciples were being taught by the master Teacher that they would have to carry on once He went back to heaven. It would be up to them to spread the good news that God had come into the world to redeem sinners. Thomas doubted, and because he doubted Jesus had to be very stearn with him. How was he going to fare if he couldn’t believe that His master was alive? Christ had great plans for Thomas. Tradition has it that he ended up going to India and dying for his faith, like most of the other apostles did. This calling of Thomas by Christ was not for weaklings, but for those who through thick and thin believe that Christ is who He said He was. Thomas, however, didn’t need much persuading once he saw his Lord again. He didn’t berate Christ. He just fell on his knees and said “My Lord and my God”, and he never looked.
The other part of your column was interesting too. But I have one question for you. If the atheist believes that there is no God and no Moral Lawgiver, what motivates him to look after his fellowman. Do you really believe in the survival of the fittest, and does it really matter if we help our fellow humans or not? In my way of thinking, if I have a Moral Lawgiver, outside of myself, who tells me that I should love my neighbour, as He loves me, then I am motivated to see my brothers and sisters as equally loved and equally deserving of my help. This may be why your atheist friends are not reaching out to the hurting and poor.
My reply:
Thank you for your email and accept my apology in advance for the perhaps ridiculous length of this reply. But the issues you raise are important and warranted a full reply on my part.
Firstly, I simply reject your view of that particular Bible story. At the end of the day, Thomas was being asked to believe the impossible, that a dead person was alive and kicking. Of all of the disciples, he appeared to be the only critical thinker and rationalist of the bunch, unwilling to accept at face value a story that insane, regardless of what he had been previously told. The very notion that a dead person is back among the living, zombies notwithstanding, is crazy. Any normal, thinking person would ask for actual evidence. The rebuke he suffers afterward – that one should believe without seeing, that you should NOT ask for evidence for extraordinary claims, that believing without evidence is a virtue, that rational critical thought is something to be shunned and cast aside in favour of fantasy – laid the ground work for lovely “traditions” like faith healing causing people to stop their cancer treatments (I’ve done stories on cases like this) the anti-science drivel of creationism and “intelligent” design, vaccine denial, outright falsehoods told to people about condoms, AIDS, and sexual health (particularly in the more illiterate parts of the world.) In short, that one story is responsible for a entire Christian subculture that rejects evidence, exalts blind faith and total obedience to authority as a virtue. These are not good things and Thomas really ought to be seen as a hero in that tale, having the strength of mind and character to ask what should have been asked by the rest of his buddies.As for your other question, let me first say that if one requires a “law giver” to know that harming others is bad (and threatening punishment if you don’t obey) that actually says more about you than it does about anyone else. Ask yourself, if you had never ever read the Bible or heard about Jesus, you would then be running about stealing, raping, or killing people? Consider what it says about you if the answer to that question is “yes.”
To put this another way, seriously consider this question, first put forward by Plato: “Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?” If the first conclusion is true then the entire argument for a “law giver” god is rendered inert. It would imply that god orders that which is intrinsically moral – and if that is so then what makes those standards moral has nothing to do with god. He merely recognizes their moral character. Therefore there is no extra-human source of morality, or if there is, it isn’t god. If the second is true, then morality is not objective at all as you’ve defined it. It is an extra human morality, but nothing about it superior to human reasons. The whims of human beings are replaced by the whims of a supernatural agency. Anything and everything god orders is moral by definition. That means that any horrible act can be justified simply by saying “god said so.”
Moving on, I should note the phrase “survival of the fittest” has no basis in science. Evolution is not about “fitness”: that was a phrase coined by 19th century social darwnists, which has nothing to do with biology. The difference is crucial and well known, outside of Christian evangelical circles, and isn’t even part of any serious scientific argument. Natural selection is best described as survival of the best adapted. Animals that can adapt to their environment and survive stand the best chance of passing on their genes. Genetic adaptations that allow improved survival – say the ability to climb better, or hide from predators – result in those adaptations being passed down to the next generation. Over time those adaptations accumulate until an entirely new species emerges. The Christian evangelical imagination of evolution meaning only the cruel and strong and vicious survive – and so therefore means that without their religion human beings would be nothing more than murderous, uncaring savages – is as far from the actual facts as pretending that a gold brick is actually the planet Jupiter. I mean, you can say it all you want, but that doesn’t make it true.
In the case of our own species, evolution took a fairly novel path, nearly unique to us and our closest genetic relatives, the great apes (particularly chimps). We lack claws, strength, feathers, fur, scales, the ability to run fast, the ability to swim or fly, see in the dark, etc etc etc. We evolved two particular traits, however, that are key. The first being a brain capable of abstract problem solving and the other being a social animal. Lacking the physical traits of other animals, we rely on our brains and social bonds to survive. Our moral and ethical instincts, at a very basic level are innate. The same as chimps. Chimps don’t have religion, but clearly have social behavior that includes ethical and moral concerns. They even keep the “bully boys” in order when they get out of line. This is all well documented in scientific work.
In short, if we actually acted as some Christians imagine evolution must require without a god, the species would have died out a long long time ago. I mean, do you really think the species would have gotten as far as the mythology of the Old Testament suggests prior to the 10 commandments without knowing that killing, stealing and otherwise harming your fellows won’t get you very far? Are we to really accept that people from other parts of the world, from cultures much older and richer than Jewish/Christian mythology, really didn’t know that caring for the weak and sick carried benefits? How on earth do you explain that the very concept of a doctor “doing no harm” and it was important to care for sick was cooked up centuries before the Christian era by Greeks who had no concept whatsoever of a supernatural “law giver” that told them how to be moral. The Greeks believed in gods, but accepted that moral and ethical impulses were innate in human beings (just as negative impulses are) and literally invented philosophy to investigate and build upon those impulses to understand how to build a just and kind society?
The Greeks had a lovely basic ethical idea that can be expressed as “Be careful whom you turn from your door.” It is famously the operating ethical system of Homer’s Odyssey. And it says that you help your fellow creatures in need because one day you might be the one who will survive on the charity of strangers. Human solidarity, as expressed in this fashion with no god required, gets us a very long way to creating a better society for everyone.
No, our moral and ethical instincts do not come from upon high. They are innate in us, a product of how we evolved. As as species we struggle to understand this. We invent and codify thousands of religions and philosophies to promote the best of those instincts and push aside the worst of them. Our instincts are not perfect, as we would expect from a jim crack process like evolution. Our cerebral cortex is too small. Our adrenal glands too large. We still carry, as Darwin put it, the lowly stamp of our origins. We try, each day, to be better if we can be. That is what it means to be human and requires no orders from upon high to figure out that running about and harming others is not a good thing. We have a word for people like that. We call them psychopaths, and we understand their brains do not work properly.
None of this, of course, has anything to do with why non-believer groups don’t often get involved in community based charity. That is an issue of focus, I think, and perhaps hubris. Many a skeptic and atheist group like to talk about the moral failings of religion. But because their focus is so firmly anchored to religious criticism, with their propensity to attack religion on moral and scientific grounds turning into a kind of feedback loop, they never have the courage of their convictions. The problem is not that atheists as individuals, or even in groups, do not act in an ethical or moral sense. It is just that often as formal groups, they don’t see charity as an important part of their mandate, whereas I argue that it should be.
Regards
Grant
Greetings web denizens, heathens, zealots and the rest of you!
So still following up with the article I wrote about religion in school last week.
I had the opportunity to talk to the parent who is suing the Hamilton school board so he has the right to withdraw his children from lessons he deems are against his religious belief, particularly lessons that involve homosexuality.
Steve Tourloukis and I chatted for a while and he seems a decent and honest guy. I think he is totally wrong on this issue, but the conversation was very civil and, if nothing else, Steve isn’t out to convert the world or try and ruin public education.
He makes a good point, one that isn’t covered much in the press he is getting. The parents of other religions already get to remove their children from classes they find theologically offensive or are given a wide berth to avoid material that offenses their faith. Whether it’s Muslim girls not having to take gym class because shorts and a t-shirt violate their modesty rules, or JVS not having to listen to lessons that talk about Easter or Christmas, he says exceptions for the religious are already being made all over the school board. In fact, it’s in the board’s official documentation about religious accommodation. True, the board is careful to point out in this documentation, which can be found on the Hamilton-Wentworth school board’s website, that there are limits to religious accommodation and that it cannot do anything that violates provincial regulations.
Nonetheless, Steve believes what he is asking for is no different than what is already given to other parents for essentially the same reason.
While I think that he if he is successful in court it will have deleterious impact on the education system to properly educate students, he does have a point. In many ways, Pandora’s Box has already been opened. The question now is not to further warp public education, but to find a way to close the box.
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.
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. Not believing in a god or gods is all atheism is. 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.
There is a universal fact. Like gravity. Or the awesomeness of Mass Effect 3. (yes, yes some fanboys are having mental melt downs about the endings, but I figure they have been indoctrinated. If you don’t get that joke, go play the game! Seriously…go!)
Essentially, if Bill Donohue’s Catholic League in the United States hates something, it’s probably something worth checking out. His most recent explosion of hot hair is about the Three Stooges remake. There are lots of reasons to be offended by this remake. Remaking the Stooges is like remaking Casablanca. Sure you can do it, but there isn’t a single reason for it. The trailer for the thing looks Zeus awful and pretty well indicates the Stooges, classic though they were, were indeed products of their own time. I can easily think of a bazillion things I would rather do than see it. And yes, bazillion is a word.
However, this is not what upsets the always upset Bill Donohue, the grand pooba of the Catholic League. What upsets him is that a nun in the film appears in a bikini, aka the “nun-kini.” I guess Billy is upset because nuns cannot wear bikinis. It says so in the Bible or something, maybe. This the same guy who attacks films, books and other art if it offends his porcelain sensibilities in the slightest. This is the same guy who claimed that Hollywood was run by, and I quote: “secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It’s not a secret, OK? And I’m not afraid to say it.” (He said that in defense of the ghastly “Passion of the Christ” film. So bikinis on film bad. Two hours of watching a guy get graphically tortured, that’s ok. Just sayin’)
Anyway, in keeping with the Inverse Law of Donohue, and although it will likely injure my brain, I’ll have to check out the movie.
Greetings heathens, zealots, web denizens, and the rest of you!
So readers of the rant may have become painfully aware of my, um, obsession with all things Mass Effect. I luurrves it! (Yes, “lurve” is a word. It’s perfectly cromulan.)
In my last blog post, I wrote about the fanboy rage over the game’s ending and this insane demand that Bioware, the producer of Mass Effect, change it. Nonsense, said I. The ending is great. It just isn’t spoon fed to you and a writer stays true to his or her vision, even if people hate it. QED.
Is there a DLC in that light?
Well, if you hop over to fellow Sun Media blogger Matthew Dykstra, you’ll see that Bioware is…well not changing the ending so much as perhaps “clarifying” it with some downloadable content in about a month’s time to address said fanboy rage.
This still strikes me as a spark of the burning stupid from an artistic point of view. Interactive medium or not, you write your story and let the chips fall where they may. What you don’t do is bend to the fickle will of an audience, right? Right?
Putting aside, for the moment, the principle that an artist puts their work out there to be judged for what it is without compromise, there is, as it turns out, precedent for this sort of thing.
Many moons ago, before people had evolved the skill to text, drive and drink coffee at the same time (Ah, not that I know about that…That’s really dangerous you know…really…no responsible adult would do that…) people read books and went to the theatre. What’s that you say? Well, citizens of the future, books are funny little things where words are printed on, gasp, paper. And theatre? That is sorta like TV without the box. (Speaking of which, be sure to check out the Standard’s Angela Scappatura in Cabaret by Garden City Productions. It’s an excellent show that runs for two more weekends.)
Ok, I was totally going somewhere with this….oh right, ok…so the point was, in this distant past without electronics, there was a charming fellow named Charles Dickens. You may have even heard of him. He wrote a brilliant book called Great Expectations.
The original ending was not well recieved. For most of the tale, Great Expectations’ hero Pip deeply loves the cold hearted Estella. But it doesn’t work out and Pip bravely moves on (although forever remaining single) and one day comes across a life beaten Estella on the street. He walks away saying that time and a hard life had “had given her a heart to understand what my heart used to be.” (Zeusdamn brilliant line that is.)
A bitter sweet, if sadly realistic ending.
Dicken’s had fanboys before there were fanboys and they freaked. One shudders to think what they would have done to poor Charles if the internet was kicking about back then. You can imagine the internet postings: “Charles Dickens has ruined my life. I demand he changes the ending of Great Expectations or I will never buy another one of his books….oooh wait, what’s that? Bleak House? Coooool. Saw the trailer. Looked awesome…”
The ending was too sad, they said. Estella should see how awesome Pip is and be with him. They’d be happy, for crying out loud and the poor guy’s patience and love needed to be rewarded. Why can’t she see that? Whhyyyyyyy?
(Seriously, they made the people who flipped out over the Star Wars special edition DVDs look reasonable.)
I suppose Dickens was, in his way, like Bioware. Or maybe Bioware is like Dickens. Whatever. In any case, he listened to his readers and rewrote the ending so that Pip and Estella met after her husband died, and they get to spend their twilight years together. Never mind that Estella should have wised up before that and….*sigh* never mind. I’ll start ranting. Point is, most copies of the book you find today do not even contain the original ending and most people remember Pip and Estella finally becoming a happy couple.
Bioware is likely to be criticized by the likes of me for bowing to fan pressure by, perhaps, compromising the integrity of their original work.
But then again, I’m one of the few who prefer the honesty of the original ending of Great Expectations and really, who am I to argue with Charles Dickens?
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.
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.
St. Catharines
