Athée Canadien
Zak
This user hasn't shared any biographical information
Posts by Zak
Secular O’Canada
Feb 10th
There’s a new push by a few MPs to change the anthem. They’re billing it as a gender neutral, secular, and bilingual version.
From Carolyn Bennett’s website:
O Canada!
Our home and native land!
Ton front est ceint de fleurons glorieux!
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!
Ton histoire est une épopée
Des plus brillants exploits.
O Canada
glorious and free!
Protégera nos foyers et nos droits.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
It’s just a mix of the existing French and English versions carefully chosen to skip the mysogynist, warmongering, and god-loving verses from each language. You can watch the video below but our MPs are embarrassingly bad singers so I’d avoid it. More >
Brands vs Religions
Feb 6th
A research paper by Tel Aviv University professor Ron Shachar examines the relationship between brands and religion. He finds a correlation between brand loyalty and religious identification.
From the introduction:
We seek to demonstrate that religiosity and brand reliance are negatively related because both of them allow individuals to express aspects of themselves to others. One specific aspect that both brands and religion are well‐positioned to express is a sense of self‐worth. We argue for a compensatory mechanism such that when an individual expresses her self‐worth via one medium (be it brands or religion), she needs the other medium less. Thus, brands and religion function as substitutes in expressing self‐worth.
Most atheists have no trouble equating religions with any other business but the negative correlation between brand loyalty and religious belief surprised me. Are we really more brand loyal than our religious neighbours?
We all have our favourite brands and the study implies our choices aren’t nearly as rational as we’d like to admit.
I’m in the process of buying a new Camaro even though I know it isn’t a very practical car. Am I suffering from brand loyalty since I worked for GM for several summers while I was in school? Or are there other ways to rationalize my choices? A philosopher of science could argue I’m biologically determined towards old-fashioned machoism. A postmodernist could say it’s a manifestation of the oedipal complex, with the car acting as the phallus. Whatever the reasons, we attempt to rationalize our consumer choices in a similar way as the religious try to rationalize theirs so relating the two seems reasonable.
Read the entire paper if you can get it. I don’t know the copyright status so I can’t leak my copy (but please feel free to contact your MP to complain about copyright laws).
Anglicans are coming after us!
Feb 6th
Rowan Williams has endorsed a report calling on all believers to step up against the new atheists.
Drawing particular attention to the threat posed by a new movement of militant atheists, led by Dawkins and Hitchens, it says the Church must respond if it is not to be pushed from the public square.
“One of the paradoxes of recent times has been the increasing secularisation of society and attempts to marginalise religion alongside an increasing interest in spiritual issues and in the social and cultural implications of religious faith,” says the report, called Challenges for the New Quinquennium.
The Church must be “explicit about the need to counter attempts to marginalise Christianity and to treat religious faith more generally as a social problem,” it says.
While I’m a little bit concerned that Canada’s official religion is condemning my beliefs, I find it comforting that they find me threatening enough to warrant a report. We must be doing something right so let’s keep it up!
The next step
Feb 3rd
PZ Myers asks why you’re an atheist. In the process he craps over everyone who doesn’t agree with his definition of atheism, even though he admits he doesn’t even like the real definition in the dictionary.
He continues:
There are a fair number of adults who ought to know better who insist on the dictionary definition, too. They’ve been brought up without god-belief, and some of them may not have even considered religion much at all. Unless they are real lightweights, genuine feathers adrift in the wind, they also carry a set of values that incline them towards godlessness…otherwise you’d expect them to fall on their knees and turn Christian the instant they first hear about Jesus. They don’t, and why? Probably because they learned some critical thinking skills from their parents. They carry positive values that make them resistant to the cheap promises of faith.
Not exactly- but I see his point. I’m probably a fourth or fifth generation atheist so I don’t have any family traditions or connections to religions of any kind. I consider myself atheist by default since I don’t have any experiences that would suggest otherwise. I’ve never considered my options, or looked into the facts, or had any deep philosophical meanderings that would lead to my non-belief. I’m an atheist simply because believers haven’t convince me otherwise.
I don’t see why atheism needs to be defined as a holistic worldview. There are already well defined philosophies and political stances that atheists can follow. To me, atheism is just a starting point in a discussion- a set of initial assumptions that guide the process of figuring out how to solve the world’s problems. When I’m arguing with an atheist, I know there won’t be any silly, annoying muses like “God did this” or “God wants us to..”, etc. The discussion can then elevated to a more meaningful process where we can better come up with the agreements and compromises necessary to make the world a better place.
I understand that sciency types like PZ Myers want to classify everything into neat little groups because science requires clear definitions in order to make the assumptions necessary to conduct experiments. But when we’re dealing with complicated social issues like atheism, a different approach is needed because people won’t be easily categorized.
What I think we’re really talking about is the next step in atheist activism. If New Atheism is about the popularized mainstream rejection of religion, the next step could be for atheists to actively start promoting what we believe and how atheism influences our decisions. If this is the case, PZ Myers’ attempt to standardize our beliefs is his foray into the identity crisis atheism is headed towards. What does it mean to be an atheist? I don’t have my answer yet but at least the discussion is more interesting than talking about religion.
Free will and Secularism
Jan 27th
Charles Lewis thinks secularism is a new way to avoid responsibility.
As Western societies have become more secular, they have become even more self-pitying and more likely to blame their travails on amorphous entities. Instead of promoting personal freedom, and the responsibility that comes with it, secularism has given us an expansive vocabulary for saying “It’s not my fault.”
Not exactly. In this context, atheists place a much higher value on personal freedom and responsibility since we know that, ultimately, there’s no one else who will do it for us. However, I think it’s just his take on the free will vs determinism debate, which means I see his point and can agree with him to an extent.
The argument goes that if human life is deterministic, we can’t be held responsible for our actions. Even though determinism has a history in theology (God set everything in motion and we have no control over anything), recent movements in philosophy of science have used new discoveries in neuroscience to argue that since our brains are just a bunch of electrical signals zipping around, our decisions are just a product of our genes and environment so we really don’t have control over any of our thoughts and actions. In comparison, religious people like Charles Lewis argue that God gave humans free will and thus we can be held responsible for our choices. Both free will and determinism have roots in theology (even though they appear to directly contradict each other) but since free will is religion’s answer to the problem of evil and eventually we might be able to figure out exactly how our brains work, these discussions will be around for a while.
So when the faithful argue that atheism leads to humanity being unable to admit responsibility, I don’t think they’re necessarily implying that we live a strange life of immorality and hedonism but rather that our opposition to free will implies that we are unable to debate subjective questions of morality. It’s a silly argument since even a hardcore determinist can argue that morality decisions are usually based on environmental factors and have definable costs and benefits, thus making these choices pre-determinable given the same initial conditions.
“The Jesuits have a spiritual practice called the “examination of conscience.” It is a daily review of what happened in one’s day — all of it. It assumes a subscription to a set of moral truths that are not up for debate.
In this world view, freedom comes from an obedience to greater truths. It demands attention to the details of life. It asks that life not be a blur of excuses but freely exercised choices. And then it asks you to be an adult and take responsibility for all that you do.”
“Freedom comes from obedience” is an interesting angle although I can’t help but laugh at the contradiction. I’ve met a lot of atheists from different backgrounds through various events and there are countless stories of people expressing feelings of relief once they’ve left their religion.
For a guy who often writes about atheism, Charles Lewis needs to get out more and actually meet some of us.
EDIT: A real philosopher is probably crying at my mangled attempt to dumb down the free will vs determinism debate so I encourage everyone to read more since the topic is fascinating, especially because of the political and ethical problems that can arise.
No school for you
Jan 20th
A group of parents in small town Morinville, Alberta are stuck without a public school as the lone publicly funded Catholic school rejected their request to provide a secular option.
Concerned parent and now secular evangelist Donna Hunter explains:
“It’s disappointing because this is exactly what we were told the first day I came to them,” Hunter said after Monday night’s meeting, adding she felt she and her group were put through a song and dance of presenting to the board and waiting for their decision. “All the news people were saying they’re not telling us what they’re doing – it’s a big reveal. For them to come back and tell me basically the same thing they told me on day one: We’re Catholic. We are who we are. We’re not going to be anything else. Exempt your child using Section 50 [of the Alberta School Act]. Go somewhere else. There’s no surprises here.”
I side with the Catholic schools on this one. They’re in the business of promoting their silly religion and are fully entitled to receive full funding according to the law. There is little we can do about it other than using it as another example why we need to abolish the separate school system. Our opponents are our provincial and federal governments who have the power to make these changes, not the individual boards who are only concerned about their own interests.
Overriding rights
Jan 18th
James Morton writes in the Toronto Star. He argues against the recent ruling by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeals to not accommodate marriage commissioners who opt out of performing gay marriages.
Canadians have become used to Mounties in turbans, halal food in government institutions and judicial officers who leave work early Friday to pray at their synagogue or mosque. Indeed, in recent months the Court of Appeal for Ontario expressly ruled women have a right to wear burqas in court, subject to certain limits designed to protect accused. None of these accommodations has been overly problematic and so allowing some Christian marriage commissioners to follow their beliefs seemed reasonable.
I too find it inconsistent that the courts are willing to accommodate Muslims but not Christians.
Secularism is a tricky concept. Some argue that the separation of church and state should force pesky marriage commissioners to leave their views at the door or get another job. But I tend to support a more inclusive view that allows people to believe what they want without damaging the effectiveness of our civil service. So as much as I might enjoy giving these bigots a kick in the pants, it seems like an easy issue we can compromise without hurting anyone.
Why not allow marriage commissioners to opt out only if there is a replacement, thus allowing the marriages to take place and not forcing the believers to violate their beliefs? The lone out-of-touch commissioner in a small town who ‘don’t like them gays’ can still shove it up his ass but larger bureaus with multiple employees can easily switch commissioners without problems.
If we force devout Christians to get another job, we are, in effect, discriminating on the basis of their religion and that causes problems for everyone. I also argue that it’s counter to secularism since it is the state telling religious people they can’t practice their religion. A true separation of church and state shouldn’t force civil servants to compromise their beliefs while delivering services.
There’s nothing dishonest or unethical about reaching out to our opponents. Christians already annoy us when they play the victim card so why not throw them a bone once in a while?
Of course, if governments could avoid recognizing all marriages we would avoid these problems altogether.
Religions are scams
Jan 18th
David Silverman defends American Atheists for proclaiming “All religions are scams” on billboards.
The biggest, A-number-one problem in this whole movement is (say it with me now) awareness — the closeted or unconnected atheist’s ignorance of organized atheism. Please don’t make the mistake that we have eliminated this major issue! This is our immediate need, and our common target market, and the problem cannot be solved without using the press.
I agree with him that, like any other promotion, atheist ads are only useful as awareness since they’ll never convince anyone to switch sides. So if I’m the target audience, I prefer something bold and provocative because I enjoy the entertainment value provided by the fallout. Direct confrontation like these ads are useful for this reason so I think some of the criticisms American Atheists is facing are undeserved.
According to the organizations, the purpose of ads is to either encourage atheists to come out, like the first atheist bus campaign by the Freethought Association of Canada; or to provoke discussion, like the current campaign by the Centre for Inquiry Canada. In both of these cases, the campaigns are considered to be successful since the groups believe they’ve met their goals.
However, atheist leaders need to realise that lasting impact of any public outreach campaign isn’t determined by the organizations that run them. Our opponents still have a larger pull in the media so our campaigns will be redefined to suit them. Since the overall goal of any atheist organization is to affect change in society, our objectives are ultimately irrelevant if the general public doesn’t understand them.
Are religions really scams? I agree with Massimo Pigliucci that a scam is an intentional act to deceive so I doubt most religions fall under this category since they tend to believe what they peddle. However, anytime I see Ratzinger sitting in his comfy chair wearing his stupid hat, I convince myself he knows it’s all bullshit but continues anyways since the perks are good.
Regardless, if the burden of proof lies with the accuser, calling out a scam places too much pressure on atheists to prove their case so they should have reconsidered the design. I’d rather keep pushing religions to prove their case since I know they’ll never succeed.
Shootin’ fish in a barrel
Jan 10th
The Halton Catholic School board in Ontario is under fire for banning LGBTQ clubs from their schools.
The board defended its policy and said it has many safety and support mechanisms for students including dialogue groups that focus on inclusion, to ensure that each student feels safe, respected and is free from persecution.
“Our priority is to promote equity, inclusion and respect for the dignity of each human being in our system,” the statement read.
Except if you check the admission requirements (.doc), you’ll see on page 6 that non-Catholics are not admitted to any JK-Grade 8 in the region. All students “shall submit a Catholic Baptismal certificate of the Latin or Eastern rite, recognized under the See of Rome.”
Clearly they have a twisted definition of equity, inclusion, and respect.
It’s easy to flog them as hypocrites but remember that according to the constitution, backed up by the Charter of Rights, and then confirmed by the province’s Education Act, Catholic elementary schools are allowed to keep non-Catholics out of their schools. (Secondary schools no longer have this privilege).
Catholic schools exist, that’s the problem. Whether or not they censor people who don’t follow their dogma is irrelevant.
Hitchens on Toronto
Jan 10th
Christopher Hitchens writes in Vanity Fair about his debate with Tony Blair in Toronto last November.
Blair on the platform was an almost complete contrast. He virtually pantomimed reaction: smiling readily if a joke was at his expense, wincing here and there, spreading his palms resignedly once or twice. Yet this body candor, too, can have its iffy aspect, like Clinton biting his fat lip in fake empathy. I couldn’t quite make up my mind until after the debate was over.
Even after trouncing his opponent in the debate, Hitchens went on to summarize the debate by pointing out the more admirable qualities of his opponent. Using any objective standard, well-rehearsed atheists will win every debate but we need to avoid the urge to keep kicking them while they’re down. Hitchens always stays classy. Even in victory, he stays humble and maintains respect for his opponent which guarantees he’ll always be invited back.
Comments