Athée Canadien
Religion
Another one bites the dust
Mar 7th
A Canadian religious group loses charitable status.
An audit of the World Assembly of Muslim Youth revealed the charity had developed ties to a number of organizations that allegedly helped fund al-Qaeda operations around the world and failed to comply with a number of standards required for charities to maintain their status.
In a warning letter to the Toronto-area organization last summer, CRA director-general Cathy Hawara said “our analysis of the Organization’s operations has led the CRA to believe…[it] was established to support the goals and operations of its parent organization, located in Saudi Arabia, which has been alleged to support terrorism.”
It looks like the group lost its status because it didn’t carry out its own activities not because of its alleged support for terrorism. Had the group funded its own similar projects and not forwarded its cash to its parent operation, the Canadian Revenue Agency might not have had a problem. More >
God’s 3 Answers…
Mar 2nd
I have a facebook friend who shared this picture on her wall. Now, I’ve been asked by both family and friends not to comment on things like this. I’ve also been asked politely (and less politely) to keep my atheist posts to the blog so I don’t inadvertently end up force-feeding the “indifferent majority”; a position I find rather useless and unnerving. More >
A Creation Debate
Feb 28th
John Mackay from creationresearch.net, is embarrassing himself in an online debate with Dan Ryder, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the University of British Columbia.
Your atheistic theory of common descent means lifeless molecules becoming cells, becoming multicelled, becoming fish, becoming amphibians etc up to man and it is still happening. Creation of Biblical kind means the bird kind is unrelated to the fish kind. Mankind is unrelated to ape kind. But all humans black white or any shade in between are related and have not evolved by millions of years of natural selection plus mutation. Hence the creationist term Mankind Single cells did not originate from lifeless molecules, but were created by the cleverness of the pre-existent creator Christ and in my last post for this debate that’s the topic I will address.
Check out this post for Dan’s challenge and John’s mind-numbing response.
The debate lasts until the end of tomorrow so head on over and comment away! As annoying as the other side can be, these types of debates are important for two reasons: They keep us sharp and they keep our opponents on the defensive. Kudos to Dan for putting up with the stupid.
*EDIT: Comments over there are closed to the public- only Dan and John can reply to each other, which is probably for the best. So comment here!
This just in: Dawkins is consistent
Feb 26th
Sometimes journalists are good, sometimes they are just plain lazy.
Richard Dawkins is world-renowned for his staunch atheism; so much that it eclipses his work in the field of evolutionary biology, his long, illustrious career with the University of Oxford, and his creepy, meme-worthy resemblance to Emma Watson. Indeed, if you know anything about Richard Dawkins, it’s probably that he’s an atheist. Maybe it’s a sign of old age (he’s pushing 70), maybe he was genuinely flattered by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, his sparring-partner last night, or perhaps he was just feeling generous. Either way, last night Professor Richard Dawkins admitted that he can’t be certain that there is no God.
The insincere shock journalism stems from a conversation between Dawkins and Williams. Specifically the article notes:
Slow down there, we’re not talking conversion. But for the first time, Dawkins is actually admitting that he leans a little agnostic. Sharing an Oxford stage with Dr. Williams, Dawkins said he was “6.9 out of seven” certain of his atheism. “I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very, very low,” he said. Philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, asked: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” to which Dawkins answered that he did.
Slow down there (because phrases like this make a journalist sound classy), this is definitely not “the first time” for any such admission.
In fact, anyone who actually made it through the first two chapters of The God Delusion will find this quote (from page 51 of the hardcover) that defines his position after outlining his scale of 1 (strong theist) to 7 (strong atheist):
…I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7 – I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden. [Emphasis mine]
It’s like the media sees this frank and consistent admission as somehow equivalent to the Pope admitting that maybe Jesus never really existed or that perhaps Mary wasn’t a virgin (of course there was a proper amount of press over revelations of Mother Teresa’s personal doubts). Dawkins, like all new atheists, has admitted that there is a vanishingly small chance that they’re in error. Something the devoutly religious rarely concede.
Finally, we can also dissect the semantics of the words atheist and agnostic to realize they are not really in contradiction. [A]theism deals with beliefs while [a]gnosticism deals with knowledge. So if one knows there is a God, he is a gnostic theist. This has been summarized effectively in a simple chart:
Dawkins admitting the limits of his knowledge is not a change of position. It is not the end of the New Atheism. It is most definitely not a gotcha moment that the pro-religious media seems to think will restore religion’s dominant place in society
Dennett on religious freedom
Feb 26th
Daniel Dennett answers questions on Canada’s new Office of Religious Freedom:
Q: In establishing an Office of Religious Freedom, will the Canadian government implicitly place religious freedom above other human rights?
A: The government implicitly elevates religious freedom: if you have a special office for one [human-rights issue] and not for the others, that does raise a question. Why not for all? Why not have an office that promotes human rights in general? Why should you single out religion if you are not already willing to defend the rights of, say, women, or gays and lesbians, and so forth?
There are certain human rights that conflict with religious freedom. The most pervasive and serious is a child’s right to access information about the world. I think that many religions attempt to shelter children from knowledge of other religions, or even the history of their own religion. They want to closely control the information that children growing up in that religion have. That’s a very serious issue. The state should not permit a religious group to say, “We forbid our children to learn how to read,” for instance. That would clearly be outside acceptability. But some might say it is a matter of religious freedom. I don’t think that case has ever come up, but if it did, you could say that it is a form of child abuse to deny your children the ability to read. In [situations like that], the promotion of the right to read for children everywhere should take precedence over protection of religious freedom.
Allen Hirtzke answers the same question: More >
A Conversation with Thomas Collins
Feb 26th
On Saturday, 18 February 2012, Toronto’s Catholic archbishop, Thomas Collins, was elevated to the College of Cardinals. Before Collins left for Rome, Brian Bethune interviewed Collins for Maclean’s magazine. Although I suspect Bethune is sympathetic to religion, Bethune did ask Collins some tough questions; however, Collins’ answers to the issues that are of concern to Canadian Atheist are infuriating.
Q: For outsiders at least, the sexual abuse of children by clergy, and the Church’s response to it, is the single greatest issue facing the Church. Do Catholics feel that way?
A: That’s a very serious issue, obviously, but I think there are many things we need to deal with. I think that’s something we have to learn from, we have to learn where we’ve done wrong and where we’ve not handled it well. I think we have learned, but we can always learn more. It’s an issue, it’s an important issue, but it’s not the only issue.
The sexual abuse of children by clergy, and the Church’s response to it is not just a very serious issue or just an important issue; it is the most serious, most important issue.
Q: You’re eyeball to eyeball with the provincial government. You do have an issue. How much can you diverge from what the province mandates for education and still be within the public system?
A: The norm for education is set by the government, but also by the Constitution. The goal is: we work together, we try to find a way. There are many different approaches for dealing with the different challenges we face in education, and we have our ways of doing them which reach the goal just as well as anybody else, and we would say better.
Q: So you expect to reach a compromise over the anti-bullying policy?
A: Bullying is something that’s totally against Catholic teaching. We think in schools people are bullied for many different reasons. It should never happen in any school, and we feel that the whole school is the place for an environment where people are treated with real love and respect. No school is perfect, no individual is perfect, but in our Catholic schools we earnestly seek to do well, and I think when people recognize that, they are grateful for the example we show.
The duplicity of Collins’ answers to the two questions above is so obvious they don’t deserve rebuttal
Q: You’ve been very active in what Catholics call “life issues.” Is that role going to increase when you’re a cardinal?
A: I think it is the ultimate issue, the respect for life from the moment of conception to natural death. The challenges have always been in terms of abortion, and that’s still very true. But the challenge of euthanasia is another dimension to pro-life. We need to put our resources into providing palliative care, to helping people in their time of sickness. We all are called to die, but we are called to live here as long as God gives us the gift of life on this Earth.
This is the Roman Catholic stand on euthanasia and the Catholic Church can continue to maintain, “We all are called to live here [in excruciating pain and misery] as long as God gives us the gift of life on this Earth.” However, the Catholic Church has no business imposing its stand on euthanasia and physician assisted dying on the rest of the population through its pressure on the government.
Bethune did not challenge any of Collins’ answers, but concerned Catholics, and the rest of the Canadian population should challenge Collins, and make him aware that they are not happy with his approach to serious issues: the sexual abuse of children by clergy, the need for GSAs in Ontario Catholic schools, and euthanasia.
Cons and Churches impede Truth and Reconciliation Commission
Feb 25th
The worst part about this story is that there is almost nothing surprising about it.
Our current government is among the most secretive and unaccountable in our nation’s history. Couple that to the various churches not typically known for their transparency or accountability and we shouldn’t expect anything less than further delays and obfuscation in the residential school Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
What our nation’s founders did to First Nations children was abhorrent. We don’t need to further salt these wounds.
Atheist being a dick… wait what?
Feb 23rd
Ok, so I’m going to say it, I think this guy was being a total dick… but that’s not against the law… right?
Well, apparently being a jerk justifies assault in some places…
I’m trying to wrap my mind around this one. I suppose if you replace the atheist in a Muhammad suit with a bigot in a Klan outfit, one could reasonably expect some sort of confrontation in public. And maybe the muslim guy thought it was hate-speechy… He’d be wrong.
But aren’t judges supposed to protect free speech and punish physical violence in the good ole USofA
Hard to tell exactly what happened in the video, but I’m not happy about the court outcome at all. This looks like the judge decided disrespecting religion was worse than violence. Not cool.
Edit: Sorry Scotland.
New series on religious freedom
Feb 22nd
Maclean’s magazine has launched a new series devoted to debating the federal government’s newly created Office of Religious Freedom.
What’s the proper place of religion in Canada’s foreign policy? Is it in Canada’s national interest to promote religious freedom abroad? Will all religions receive equal protection? Will other types of rights have to take a back seat?
First up is Clifford Orwin who argues for the office because he sees religious coercion as a special case: More >
Comments