“Cult” is the new “fundamentalist”

I have to hammer on one more thing from Sam Harris’s reply. He objects to the label “atheism” because it will chase away people who do not want to … well, read what he says.

They have read the writings of the “new atheists,” sent us letters and emails of support, are quite fond of criticizing religion whenever the opportunity arises, but they have no interest whatsoever in joining a cult of such critics. And there is something cult-like about the culture of atheism. In fact, much of the criticism I have received of my speech is so utterly lacking in content that I can only interpret it as a product of offended atheist piety.

[Read more…]

Sam Harris seems like a nice fellow, but very confused

Sam Harris responds to the reaction to his speech at the Atheist Alliance meeting.

Is it really possible that PZ Myers and Ellen Johnson think I was recommending that we stop publicly criticizing religion or that I am hiding my own atheism out of “shame and fear”? I would not have thought such a misreading was possible, given the contents of my speech and my rather incessant criticism of religion in my books, articles, and lectures.

It’s puzzling to be accused of misreading Harris when his misreading of PZ Myers is so far off base; perhaps my name was just tossed in as an afterthought, and he’s really trying to address Ellen Johnson’s comment. Even there, though, I think he’s mangling the point.

[Read more…]

Letter to a non-atheist New Atheist

Dear Sam,

I read your presentation to the Atheist Alliance. You were eminently successful in being a controversial contrarian, so your intent was well executed. Good work!

However, I do have to disagree with your argument (oh, right — you were trying to stir up dissent. Again, good work!). You say that using the term “atheism” is a mistake, and that “Attaching a label to something carries real liabilities” … and that atheism is entirely negative. You say that accepting that label means we are agreeing to be “viewed as a cranky sub-culture”.

[Read more…]

Never try to exorcise an atheist

There’s nothing to drive out but the humanity. VJack has a sad story to tell.

If you think it’s just an isolated story and that exorcisms are an odd little superstitious relic that only wackos on the fringe fuss over, Nick Matzke brought this odd account from JP Moreland to my attention:

Recently, a hairdresser was arrested for performing cosmetic surgery on several “patients.” When this happens, the results are usually disastrous. Do fraudulent “surgeries” mean there are no legitimate cosmetic surgeries? Of course not.

Recently, a man and woman were caught trying to exorcise a demon from a little child in Arizona. The police found the three covered in blood inside a barricaded bedroom. The man died upon arrest. Do fraudulent, ignorant “exorcisms” imply that demons aren’t real and all exorcisms are bogus? You do the math.

A vast literature supports the reality of demons…

And if that isn’t enough for you, here’s an article recounting various demonic events at Biola. It’s a real eye-opener: these people are nuts.

Note that J.P. Moreland is a Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at the Talbot School of Theology at Biola University. People, don’t send your children to Biola. It’s like shipping them off to some empty wasteland and asking them to get educated by random goat-herders.

That persistent conflict

I don’t even know what Wilkins is complaining about anymore, but he’s got some kind of objection (or agreement? I don’t know) to things I’ve said before or didn’t say. This is the danger of getting into discussions with philosophers — they’re saying something with great erudition, but sometimes you don’t quite see the point, except that they must say something.

Anyway, it’s something about the conflict between science and religion this time. At least I can try to say what I mean. I’m not going to worry about whether it answers what he asks, whatever it is.

[Read more…]

Let’s disband the theology departments!

Dawkins does know how to tweak the fluffy little wankers, that’s for sure. He is suggesting that universities ought to dismantle their theology departments!

We who doubt that “theology” is a subject at all, or who compare it with the study of leprechauns, are eagerly hoping to be proved wrong. Of course, university departments of theology house many excellent scholars of history, linguistics, literature, ecclesiastical art and music, archaeology, psychology, anthropology, sociology, iconology, and other worthwhile and important subjects. These academics would be welcomed into appropriate departments elsewhere in the university. But as for theology itself, defined as “the organised body of knowledge dealing with the nature, attributes, and governance of God”, a positive case now needs to be made that it has any real content at all, and that it has any place in today’s universities.

You don’t see colleges retaining their astrology and alchemy departments, so I think it is quite reasonable to shuffle the superannuated fogeys off to the glue factory, and let the others find their places in disciplines with some foundation in reality, like philosophy and history.

It ought to be considered a promotion. I’d be embarrassed to have a degree in theology … and history, philosophy, literature, etc., all have considerably more respectability.