If he isn’t already on it, that is. Here he is interviewing Antony Flew.
Flew gives the impression of being a nice old man in a muddle. Strobel is a badger for Christ.
It must come with the name that Revere has to sound the warning — we’ve got anti-god/anti-religion movies available now, and more on the way. I’m a little surprised that movies that preach moral responsibility (don’t torture people, don’t imprison them without trial, don’t ship them off to countries that will torture them), sympathy and tolerance (gay people feel love and suffering, too) are considered anti-Christian, but if that’s the way they want it, that’s fine with me.
I’m also a little puzzled why they would find a documentary like Jesus Camp anti-Christian. It simply describes the activities that go on in a kids’ camp dedicated to religious indoctrination. Shouldn’t they instead be condemning hysterical dogma as practiced in that camp, rather than the movie that merely reveals it?
The one movie mentioned that I’m looking forward to seeing is The Golden Compass, even though I hear they may have toned down the anti-religious sentiment that’s present in the book. There is a little misconception there, though: the book condemns an institution dedicated to preserving dogma and that willingly sacrifices individuals to achieve its aims, and it is associated with religion, but it isn’t quite as flamingly anti-religion as some of the critics portray it, and I’m beginning to suspect that many of the religious fanatics who hate Pullman’s books haven’t actually read them.
I mainly want to see it because I like the polar bears and witches, myself.
I’m having a lovely time here at Beyond Belief 2 — you should all be here (and of course, you will be; as they did last year, everything will be available after the meeting on the web.) It’s an eclectic mix of all kinds of interesting stuff outside of my usual range: yesterday, we had terrific sessions on the history of the Enlightenment, evolutionary economics, evolution of religion, and some speculation and cosmology. It was vastly entertaining, and lest you think this was a bunch of thugly atheists preaching to the choir, let me reassure you that I disagreed with about a third of what I heard.
How peculiar — I’ve gotten several requests in email to comment on this plaint from Theodore Dalrymple, a fellow who doesn’t like those “New Atheists” like Sam Harris and Dan Dennett. It’s peculiar because I’m here at a conference with Sam Harris and Dan Dennett (and others who do not consider themselves “New Atheists”)— should I just ask them what they think? Actually, if anyone wants to pass along any brilliant questions that I can use to dazzle the luminaries with my insight, go ahead, toss them into the comments.
It’s one of those annoying opinion pieces by an unbeliever who wants to make excuses for belief: the premise is “To regret religion is to regret Western civilization.” It contains many strange arguments, like this one.
The thinness of the new atheism is evident in its approach to our civilization, which until recently was religious to its core. To regret religion is, in fact, to regret our civilization and its monuments, its achievements, and its legacy. And in my own view, the absence of religious faith, provided that such faith is not murderously intolerant, can have a deleterious effect upon human character and personality. If you empty the world of purpose, make it one of brute fact alone, you empty it (for many people, at any rate) of reasons for gratitude, and a sense of gratitude is necessary for both happiness and decency. For what can soon, and all too easily, replace gratitude is a sense of entitlement. Without gratitude, it is hard to appreciate, or be satisfied with, what you have: and life will become an existential shopping spree that no product satisfies.
For my own part, I think Western civilization was built on the talent and hard work and ideals of its people, and that if you stripped religion from its greatest artists and heroes and leaders and thinkers, they still would have been great.
I detest the argument about gratitude. It’s a deep error: we should exult in our life and a community of purpose that we build, but there is no one to be grateful to, and displacing our sense of obligation to our human aspirations onto a nonexistent deity represents an abandonemnt of rationality. And the reduction of reason to a mere “shopping spree” or feelings of entitlement is simply the old canard that atheists are amoral hedonists in more high-falutin’ pious language.
You can all discuss this for a while. I’m going to go listen to philosophers and historians explain the Enlightenment to me.
What’s so good about religion?
How strange that I haven’t heard anything about this new movie coming out this Spring — I guess I need to watch more TV.
It’s a heretical documentary/comedy by Bill Maher called Religulous, combining “religious” and “ridiculous”. I’m not seeing much of a buzz for it on the web just yet — a brief mention by Chris Hallquist, placeholders at IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes, a quick blurb on RD.net, and this short interview with the ever-annoying Larry King.
I’m so disappointed, though. They didn’t contact me through a proxy and interview me for a movie with a different name. Don’t they understand how these things are done?
Last night, in my talk, I said that I didn’t think religion was necessarily a force for evil. Then, this morning, I was sent a link to some convoluted religious sophistry that made my lip curl in revulsion. Maybe I was wrong.
The link will take you to an article by Orson Scott Card in which he complains about homosexuals. That probably tells you all you need to know; Card has this reputation for letting his mormonism hang out in the ugliest ways possible.
We had a good time at St Olaf tonight — it was a small group, I gave a short talk, and we had lots and lots of stimulating conversation afterwards, along with my favorite pizza (jalapeno and pineapple). I’ve tucked what I sort of said below the fold.
It’s another weekend of travel for me. Tonight, I’m off to St Olaf, that fine Lutheran institute of higher learning, to rail against the corruption of science by religion. I’ll be speaking at 6 at the Lion’s Lair, Buntrock Commons, out there in Northfield, MN (wait…”lion’s lair”? Do they mean that literally?)
The really exciting news, though, is that the Minnesota Atheists are hosting a talk by Hector Avalos tomorrow afternoon. This is extremely convenient for me — drive in to give a talk, stay and get to listen to another — so yes, I’ll be there, too! It’s just fun, fun, fun for this lovely October weekend.
The Sunday, October 21 meeting of Minnesota Atheists will take place in a new location: Ridgedale Public Library, 12601 Ridgedale Dr., Minnetonka, MN 55305 (see attached map).
The meeting will be 1:00-3:30 p.m.
1:00 – 1:30 p.m. – Social time.
1:30 – 2:30 p.m. – Presentation.
2:30 – 2:50 p.m. – Book sales/signing.
3:00 – 3:30 p.m. – Business meeting.It will be followed by dinner at 4:00 p.m. at Wanderer’s Garden, 13059 Ridgedale Dr., Minnetonka, MN 55305 (Menu or $10.50 Buffet)
Our special guest, Hector Avalos, will speak on “How Archaeology Killed Biblical History”
Hector Avalos is professor of religious studies at Iowa State University and the author or editor of six books on Biblical studies and religion, including his recently published work, The End of Biblical Studies. Join us for a fascinating presentation detailing how the more we discover about the ancient world, the less reliable we find the Bible.
From the dust jacket of The End of Biblical Studies: Hector Avalos calls for an end to biblical studies as we know them. He outlines two main arguments for this surprising conclusion.
First, academic biblical scholarship has clearly succeeded in showing that the ancient civilization that produced the Bible held beliefs about the origin, nature, and purpose of the world and humanity that are fundamentally opposed to the views of modern society. The Bible is thus largely irrelevant to the needs and concerns of contemporary human beings.
Second, Avalos criticizes his colleagues for applying a variety of flawed and specious techniques aimed at maintaining the illusion that the Bible is still relevant in today’s world. In effect, he accuses his profession of being more concerned about its self-preservation than about giving an honest account of its own findings to the general public and faith communities.
Copies of The End of Biblical Studies will be available for sale for $30 (price includes sales tax). After the presentation we will have book sales and signing. This will be followed by our business meeting. Finally, those who wish can join us for an early dinner at the Wanderer’s Garden, a Chinese restaurant.
The debate between Hitchens and McGrath is well worth listening to. Hitchens is cogent and sharp; he makes exactly the same points about the fundamental immorality of religion that he made at the FFRF convention, but in less time, and with fewer distracting digressions. He’s on fire. Of course, he also doesn’t get sucked into anti-Islamic fervor, but addresses the deplorable universal qualities of religion.
McGrath is simply awful. This is his argument in summary:
I was an atheist once, but I got better
Being religious has health benefits
It’s the fringe fanatics that give religion a bad name
Here, I have some tedious praise for Jesus that you’ve all heard before
It’s dreadful laid out like that, but it’s worse hearing him plummily drone on about it all. Even worse, Hitchens specifically asked him to state his beliefs — does he truly believe that a human sacrifice two thousand years ago relieves him of certain moral responsibilities? — and he doesn’t touch that one. All he had to offer was murky blathering.
Hitchens asked some clearly worded questions about the meaning of the central events of Christianity, and McGrath didn’t answer any of them. Clearly, the man needs to be wrestled into a corner, given one sharply worded question, and told to simply answer it … something I doubt the obfuscatory babbler can do. We saw the same thing in the outtakes from The Root of All Evil? — the reason the McGrath interview didn’t make the final version was obvious. He’s dead boring and waffly.
By the way, as it turns out, I’ve volunteered to enter a debate at the U of Minnesota on 7 February, on the compatibility of religion and science, with a Templeton-award winner, Loyal Rue. I don’t think I’m going to be as lucky as Hitchens in getting a pompous, tedious cloud of gas for an opponent.
