Interesting point Bob. I think that by strong executive I was referring more to the expanded boundaries of Presidential power, not the strength of the man in office. As exhibited by our last President, even a very weak man can make great strides in expanding the role of the executive office.
James, very good points on snark. Indeed, it is merely a rhetorical device and as with all rhetorical devices, it serves its purpose. When in Rome....
Bob, I know. Christianity has drifted a teeny, tiny bit from its original stated purpose. That there are even things like the Prosperity Gospel sends shivers through my soul. Am I being too harsh to Dawkins et al with that quote? I don't mean to lambaste their body of work, just the work that tries to proselytize atheism. I'm an anti-missionary, no matter the faith.
James Williams--The text I was referring to specifically of Dawkins' was "The God Delusion" which does, indeed, attempt to disprove God. I know he's written about biology already, which is exactly why I recommend he do so again. It is of a far finer vintage than his atheism-peddling. Show, don't tell.
sidereal--exactly. That's the nail. I see you've hit it directly on the head.
Good points, Bob. However, I do sum up Dawkins's arguments in my second paragraph, I think? The point being, it's fine to make money, but the effort here is so entirely pointless that the minds of these authors, be they Hitchens, Harris, or Dawkins, et al could all be used to much greater effect arguing or discussing worthwhile topics. As in, not merely atheism for atheism's sake, or to pounce on religious people or religion, but to discuss perhaps the wonderful world of science, history, and so forth. The reason I harp on their money-making is that this can be the only explanation to write this sort of pointless screed. It's not an intellectual pursuit at all, because the intellectual ends of each of their pieces are so hollow and meaningless. I'd go off on Warren or the other faux-Christian writers (and yes, I'm sorry, but the purpose of Christianity is not to build wealth but to live simply and good and with as little as possible) but that's not the topic at hand. Still, food for thought. My words for the televangelists and the Rick Warrens of the world would be far, far more harsh than my words for the Atheist Joy Luck Club, you can be sure.
Ah, I think there is the makings of a debate over the merits of populism in this site's future. Suffice to say, my view is that populism in this nation was born with Andrew Jackson. It lead directly to the advent of an extremely powerful Presidency, and has been the cause of basically our country's warlike nature ever since. More on that, though...
One difference is that while politics can be tried and tested, and parody or satire can be an effective political tool, faith or non-faith or whatever you'd like to call it, is in the end unprovable. Now when we enter into the realm of politics and religion--Sullivan's Christianism etc etc--than those same tools become effective again. Voltaire was as often as not lampooning the powers behind religion, and often he fell into the same trap that many of today's atheist's for hire fall into (or the religious when they attack atheists): there is simply no end to this debate. It is pointless in the extreme. Faith or the lack thereof is simply circumstantial, and people aren't often convinced one way or another save through life experiences.
Good points, all. I think there are times for polite debate and times for snarky debate. Usually when you're up against the unstoppable force of extreme stupidity a bit of snark can go a long ways...
I'd say there's a strong link between decline in religion and State sponsorship of Religion--i.e. the Church of England. Also Europe has a historical tie to religious conflict that America doesn't have. Our wars have been largely secular ones.
Thanks, Chris. I remember that game, too, though I was just a boy at the time. This was our first real shot at greatness, and even though we lost, hot-damn what a game!
Regarding Hawkins et al my final take on the matter is they're all just out branding themselves and selling books. That's their right, of course, and I'm sure it makes them all lots of money. But like the religious folk I admire, I admire the quiet, thoughtful, and respectful non-believers the most.
Chris--agreed. And am in general agreement regarding the post at large, as I am grudginlgy pro-choice but do see more room for restrictions and regulations etc.
matako--first off, I'm not a republican though I do believe in the Republic, and not all Conservatives are anti-any-of-those-things you describe though certainly some are, perhaps even most. And I agree too that the GOP is a bunch of morons in large part, but that is not the same thing WHATSOEVER as the culture war which goes much deeper than politics.
Just remember, nothing is so changeable as the human heart, save perhaps the human mob. Tidal might be the word I'd use to describe it.
But matako, you yourself use the term "eventually" regarding prop 8; and don't be sure of anything regarding Roe v Wade--that can change with the simple appointment of another conservative to the SCOTUS. Not under Obama, no, but who next? Just don't count on anything and you'll live a happier life.
Maybe, but the GOP and the culture wars are two entirely different things. And if you haven't noticed, politics, culture--it all moves in circles. What happened two years after Clinton got elected? Or 12 years after Reagan? Who won in 2000? In 2008? Nothing is over. I haven't heard one damn fat lady singing...
Culture wars never end. They are usually not termed "wars" and shouldn't be, but they never end. At what point in time has "culture" itself been static? matako, your arrogance will be your undoing. It comes across not so much as confidence but as the lack thereof.
I say this as someone largely sympathetic to the causes you argue for. I don't think these sort of brash statements further the conversation, and Dave is exactly right, this ain't over yet. Nor will it ever be.
Chris, I don't mean to thread-jack. I'll have a better response up as a post.
Oh I understand that, Cascadian. What I mean here is that not all fundamentalists are necessarily the shallow, vapid types I paint them as in that piece. I only mean to say that when I began to draw "sides" I started boxing in ideas, etc. and that this is not necessarily helpful in the larger scheme of things...
You know what, he didn't smoke. He complained about not smoking, and warned us that he might be off his kilter a little because of it, but he did great. Not a cigarette in sight.
Yes, circumstantial or perhaps geographical segregation does exist at very high levels but this is not based on purposeful segregation so much as it is on the nature of racial groups to live in segregated neighborhoods in a semi-organic fashion. This would not be the case with nerds or gays, at least I don't think.
Also, I think both the notion of kicking kids out of school and creating schools specially for them is just a little absurd in that a lot of teenagers are very confused about their sexuality. There's a lot of questions, doubt, experimentation etc. that goes on for young people. A lot of them probably won't come to grips fully with that part of their maturing selves until after high school. People should not be so quick to either judge them or encourage them to fully understand their own complicated sexual beings at that young, hormonal age...
I think you're absolutely on to something with that Scott, but I wonder where one can draw a clear distinction. Sports perform a social function. Arguably so do other forms of entertainment. So it's tricky. And politically I think it's very muddy waters to go at the jugular of the private schools, whether or not they deserve it...
Right, matoko. Of course you would say that without any evidence to back your claim.
I'd say probably the finest mind in blogging today is Daniel Larison, who also happens to be very, very religious. Freddie is right up there, and he's an atheist. So once again, I'd say it plays no role whatsoever. Two smart writers of two entirely opposing "faiths"...
Good lord, matoko, your modesty is overwhelming. I read the rather pithy "God Delusion" a while back, and what struck me most is that any intelligent person would actually spend so much time arguing over the existence of God in this day and age. It's an unprovable theory, the existence or lack thereof. His arguments aren't elegant; they're the reverse absurdity of Decartes, and rather less eloquent than Descartes' equally foolish attempt to prove God's existence.
And I disagree that one needs a high IQ to choose or not choose faith. Perhaps that was the case once upon a time, but not anymore. I'd say intelligence really plays no factor at all in faith. Some of the most brilliant people I know are atheists. Some of the most brilliant people I know are religious.
On “In defense of snark”
Interesting point Bob. I think that by strong executive I was referring more to the expanded boundaries of Presidential power, not the strength of the man in office. As exhibited by our last President, even a very weak man can make great strides in expanding the role of the executive office.
James, very good points on snark. Indeed, it is merely a rhetorical device and as with all rhetorical devices, it serves its purpose. When in Rome....
On “Tales told by idiots, full of sound and fury…”
Okay, in reverse order:
Bob, I know. Christianity has drifted a teeny, tiny bit from its original stated purpose. That there are even things like the Prosperity Gospel sends shivers through my soul. Am I being too harsh to Dawkins et al with that quote? I don't mean to lambaste their body of work, just the work that tries to proselytize atheism. I'm an anti-missionary, no matter the faith.
James Williams--The text I was referring to specifically of Dawkins' was "The God Delusion" which does, indeed, attempt to disprove God. I know he's written about biology already, which is exactly why I recommend he do so again. It is of a far finer vintage than his atheism-peddling. Show, don't tell.
sidereal--exactly. That's the nail. I see you've hit it directly on the head.
"
Good points, Bob. However, I do sum up Dawkins's arguments in my second paragraph, I think? The point being, it's fine to make money, but the effort here is so entirely pointless that the minds of these authors, be they Hitchens, Harris, or Dawkins, et al could all be used to much greater effect arguing or discussing worthwhile topics. As in, not merely atheism for atheism's sake, or to pounce on religious people or religion, but to discuss perhaps the wonderful world of science, history, and so forth. The reason I harp on their money-making is that this can be the only explanation to write this sort of pointless screed. It's not an intellectual pursuit at all, because the intellectual ends of each of their pieces are so hollow and meaningless. I'd go off on Warren or the other faux-Christian writers (and yes, I'm sorry, but the purpose of Christianity is not to build wealth but to live simply and good and with as little as possible) but that's not the topic at hand. Still, food for thought. My words for the televangelists and the Rick Warrens of the world would be far, far more harsh than my words for the Atheist Joy Luck Club, you can be sure.
On “In defense of snark”
Ah, I think there is the makings of a debate over the merits of populism in this site's future. Suffice to say, my view is that populism in this nation was born with Andrew Jackson. It lead directly to the advent of an extremely powerful Presidency, and has been the cause of basically our country's warlike nature ever since. More on that, though...
On “atheism and monsters”
One difference is that while politics can be tried and tested, and parody or satire can be an effective political tool, faith or non-faith or whatever you'd like to call it, is in the end unprovable. Now when we enter into the realm of politics and religion--Sullivan's Christianism etc etc--than those same tools become effective again. Voltaire was as often as not lampooning the powers behind religion, and often he fell into the same trap that many of today's atheist's for hire fall into (or the religious when they attack atheists): there is simply no end to this debate. It is pointless in the extreme. Faith or the lack thereof is simply circumstantial, and people aren't often convinced one way or another save through life experiences.
On “In defense of snark”
Good points, all. I think there are times for polite debate and times for snarky debate. Usually when you're up against the unstoppable force of extreme stupidity a bit of snark can go a long ways...
On “Casino Politics”
I'd say there's a strong link between decline in religion and State sponsorship of Religion--i.e. the Church of England. Also Europe has a historical tie to religious conflict that America doesn't have. Our wars have been largely secular ones.
On “Good show Cardinals…”
Yeah, it was a damn good game regardless of the outcome. Damn good.
"
Thanks, Chris. I remember that game, too, though I was just a boy at the time. This was our first real shot at greatness, and even though we lost, hot-damn what a game!
On “atheism and monsters”
Bob, of course. We all cross the line at times.
Regarding Hawkins et al my final take on the matter is they're all just out branding themselves and selling books. That's their right, of course, and I'm sure it makes them all lots of money. But like the religious folk I admire, I admire the quiet, thoughtful, and respectful non-believers the most.
"
Bob, I deleted your post because you crossed the line. We have a commenting policy, and you need to stick to it.
On “D. Linker on Culture War-Abortion”
How dare you consider nuance in this debate, Mark. For shame!
On “Capitulation and Retreat”
Ah well, the horse can take it.... ;)
On “D. Linker on Culture War-Abortion”
de nada
"
Cascadian.... < blockquote > you savvy? followed by < /blockquote > minus the spaces...
You can use em or i for italics...not sure about all of it. Feel free to expirement...
"
Chris--agreed. And am in general agreement regarding the post at large, as I am grudginlgy pro-choice but do see more room for restrictions and regulations etc.
matako--first off, I'm not a republican though I do believe in the Republic, and not all Conservatives are anti-any-of-those-things you describe though certainly some are, perhaps even most. And I agree too that the GOP is a bunch of morons in large part, but that is not the same thing WHATSOEVER as the culture war which goes much deeper than politics.
Just remember, nothing is so changeable as the human heart, save perhaps the human mob. Tidal might be the word I'd use to describe it.
"
But matako, you yourself use the term "eventually" regarding prop 8; and don't be sure of anything regarding Roe v Wade--that can change with the simple appointment of another conservative to the SCOTUS. Not under Obama, no, but who next? Just don't count on anything and you'll live a happier life.
"
Maybe, but the GOP and the culture wars are two entirely different things. And if you haven't noticed, politics, culture--it all moves in circles. What happened two years after Clinton got elected? Or 12 years after Reagan? Who won in 2000? In 2008? Nothing is over. I haven't heard one damn fat lady singing...
"
Culture wars never end. They are usually not termed "wars" and shouldn't be, but they never end. At what point in time has "culture" itself been static? matako, your arrogance will be your undoing. It comes across not so much as confidence but as the lack thereof.
I say this as someone largely sympathetic to the causes you argue for. I don't think these sort of brash statements further the conversation, and Dave is exactly right, this ain't over yet. Nor will it ever be.
Chris, I don't mean to thread-jack. I'll have a better response up as a post.
On “Painting in broad strikes”
Oh I understand that, Cascadian. What I mean here is that not all fundamentalists are necessarily the shallow, vapid types I paint them as in that piece. I only mean to say that when I began to draw "sides" I started boxing in ideas, etc. and that this is not necessarily helpful in the larger scheme of things...
On “Of Maus and Men”
You know what, he didn't smoke. He complained about not smoking, and warned us that he might be off his kilter a little because of it, but he did great. Not a cigarette in sight.
On “Schools, segregation, and gay rights”
Yes, circumstantial or perhaps geographical segregation does exist at very high levels but this is not based on purposeful segregation so much as it is on the nature of racial groups to live in segregated neighborhoods in a semi-organic fashion. This would not be the case with nerds or gays, at least I don't think.
Also, I think both the notion of kicking kids out of school and creating schools specially for them is just a little absurd in that a lot of teenagers are very confused about their sexuality. There's a lot of questions, doubt, experimentation etc. that goes on for young people. A lot of them probably won't come to grips fully with that part of their maturing selves until after high school. People should not be so quick to either judge them or encourage them to fully understand their own complicated sexual beings at that young, hormonal age...
"
I think you're absolutely on to something with that Scott, but I wonder where one can draw a clear distinction. Sports perform a social function. Arguably so do other forms of entertainment. So it's tricky. And politically I think it's very muddy waters to go at the jugular of the private schools, whether or not they deserve it...
On “atheism and monsters”
Right, matoko. Of course you would say that without any evidence to back your claim.
I'd say probably the finest mind in blogging today is Daniel Larison, who also happens to be very, very religious. Freddie is right up there, and he's an atheist. So once again, I'd say it plays no role whatsoever. Two smart writers of two entirely opposing "faiths"...
"
Good lord, matoko, your modesty is overwhelming. I read the rather pithy "God Delusion" a while back, and what struck me most is that any intelligent person would actually spend so much time arguing over the existence of God in this day and age. It's an unprovable theory, the existence or lack thereof. His arguments aren't elegant; they're the reverse absurdity of Decartes, and rather less eloquent than Descartes' equally foolish attempt to prove God's existence.
And I disagree that one needs a high IQ to choose or not choose faith. Perhaps that was the case once upon a time, but not anymore. I'd say intelligence really plays no factor at all in faith. Some of the most brilliant people I know are atheists. Some of the most brilliant people I know are religious.