On readings

[xoder]

Found in 125 Street Station. No, I've not gone to the site.

I started reading 'The Portable Atheist', and I have to admit I feel very vulnerable when I do so on the train. I know it's not rational, but I recognise that atheists make up one of America's least favorite minorities. Don't believe me? There have been polls that showed that not only do a majority of Americans believe in angels, but an overwhelming majority believe that atheists are unfit to be president, or to teach.

Rational or not, I'm most worried that a casual aquaintance will think less of me for not needing or wanting a Supreme Being in my life. Frankly, I do not understand what triggers the Theistic Question in the first place. But back to my paranoia for a moment - see how ingrained the concept of 'atheism = moral failing' is? And this from a lifelong atheist.

Oh, and I want to talk about theodicy for a moment. Pope Guilty posted about it recently, and it turned out to be a word I'd been looking for. Out of space!

Comments

[nightstalker.livejournal.com]

Wow, that site is batshit. Did you know that Israel caused the tsunami in Indonesia just to kill Muslims?

In fact, did you know that everything bad that happens in the world is caused by Israel?

[tenthz.livejournal.com]

Well, of course! That is just common knowledge. :-P (j/k)

[tenthz.livejournal.com]

For a bit of irony, I think you should tuck your book inside a copy of the bible and see if you feel any better.

[(Anonymous)]

There's a pretty solid reason to think theism is equivalent to morality: morals, absent a standard by which to judge them, are subjective. It isn't the only way to define morality, but it's -very- convenient.

[ellf.livejournal.com]

Drat. That was me. :)

[xoder.livejournal.com]

Oh, good. I was going to do some IP lookup stuff ;-D

[xoder.livejournal.com]

It wouldn't fit. This is a seriously thick book (450+ pages of thick paper). Also, pretending to a faith I do not have would bother me more, I think.

[shoujo-mallet.livejournal.com]

Though this is not a good answer, sometimes when I am reading something risque (to someone at least) I make a temporary book cover out of wrapping or newspaper. I could deal with potential strangers making comments at me, but I'd rather avoid it and enjoy my book.

That being said, while I was reading the Portable Atheist (uncovered), someone who was very alone and uncertain in his atheism saw my book was was embolden to ask me some questions. After all, there are few reasonable "tells" for atheists I think. (Offensive t-shirts galore though!)

[electricpaladin.livejournal.com]

It doesn't help that some famous atheists are really, really obnoxious. I heard Richard Dawkins speak once, and I found him insufferable. Pathologizing your opponent is bad form and intellectually lazy. And also, calling faith a disease is insulting. I expected better from such an obviously bright and well-educated guy. Christopher Hitchens likewise, by all accounts, though I was lucky enough not to be working on any of the days he came to speak at Kepler's.

That doesn't mean I think a person's 'niceness' is essential to swallowing or respecting his or her ideas, mind you. I'll get to my real objection in a moment.

I think the real problem is triumphalism, the attitude that any one belief systems is superior to all others. Triumphalism is the real intellectual sin that leads to atrocities. What pisses me off about Hitchens and Dawkins and so on is that they are exactly as triumphalist as the religions they condemn.

Anyway, enough ranting. I have a serious mad-on for Hitchens and Dawkins. You rock your atheist self. The only way to change the world is for us all to be out there with our points of view, carrying them proudly, but without pushing them on others. Reading "The Portable Atheist" on the subway is part of the solution, so don't you dare stop.

[erin-trying.livejournal.com]

I also dislike many famous atheists, Hitchens and Dawkins especially so. While I agree triumphalism is certainly part of it, what irks me the most is the denial of faith-based atheism. That any argument not seated in reason, especially one that isn't derogatory of theism, is somehow not atheistic enough. Consequently, I am less of an atheist because my disbelief in a divine power is purely volitional.

[electricpaladin.livejournal.com]

That's true, and I can see how that annoying narrowing of their perspective would have gone over my head.

In general, I think their attitude of 'if it's not based on reason it isn't valid' is extremely limiting. Reason is great, but it's highly overrated. I believe that what makes us exceptional creatures is that we are willing to go beyond reason. Animals have excellent reasoning skills. Bacteria are great at multiplication. Sea Slugs have done a difficult cost-benefit analysis and come to surprising conclusions. Only humans (and higher animals, like the charismatic megafauna that we're all so fond of) show signs of emotion.