Comments on: Blasphemy day

By: Kent

Kent — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 09:26:38 +0000

We have the Blasphemy Contest winners!

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/news/blasphemy_contest_winners/

By: Jacques

Jacques — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:43:56 +0000

Yep, I remember – thanks for visiting!

By: Patrick Madden

Patrick Madden — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:34:23 +0000

Thanks, Jacques. I was a student in some of your lectures -- in fact a TAB tutor at one stage. So, hello again! I found your blog via Simon Halliday's.

By: Jacques

Jacques — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 10:35:21 +0000

Well put. Regarding Atheism 3.0, you may be interested in Nieman’s Moral Clarity – it’s not about atheism per se, but makes the point that many H.Sapiens do seem to need some idealism in their lives, and offers another pillar of support against the utterly condescending attitudes some “new atheists” seem to think is productive.

By: Patrick Madden

Patrick Madden — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 10:11:37 +0000

I think the celebration of Blasphemy Day is generally a bad idea. It gives ammunition to people who complain (with accuracy) that evangelical atheists have disappeared up their own bums to continue their intellectual self-pleasuring with zero concern for the harm they do to feelings of other people. The idea that cleaving people from their religions will make their lives better is pure and simple delusion, even though it obviously serves to make atheists' comfort zones all the more comfortable. A far more credible approach is that of (the badly-named) Atheism 3.0, an avowedly atheistic humanism that nevertheless finds the sense to acknowledge the genuinely positive role that religions and faith have played and continue to play in many people's lives, and which therefore respectfully leaves room for others' religious beliefs. These humanists can remain true to their atheism and let others remain true to their faith -- unlike celebrators of Blasphemy Day, who cannot merely hold own their flag aloft but must try and tear others' down, apparently in order to make them more reasonable. This misguided impulse arises from a ham-fisted and mistaken conflation of religious faith with imperviousness to logical reasoning, even though both history and the modern day are replete with examples of religious people who were also exemplars of reason and, most importantly, lived lives that were beneficial to themselves and to others. In other words, the motto of the evangelical atheists who celebrate Blasphemy Day is something like: "the beatings will continue until you agree with us".

By: Jacques

Jacques — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 04:33:34 +0000

Kevin > it’s partly selfish, I think, in that I’d like live in a world that simply works better in terms of what people think, say and do. Much of my energy is wasted on being irritated with others, and I suspect I’d be able to enjoy myself more if less of that energy is wasted. But it’s also partly altruistic, in that I’d like other people to have better lives themselves. I know why this is for those I’m close to – for the rest, it’s most likely just programming.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:53:10 +0000

This care that you have ‘for the long-term evolution of society, and defending reason and rational strategy in general’, where does it sprout from? I’m just curious

By: Jacques

Jacques — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:05:33 +0000

Thanks Amy – a 10-second look (so far) indicates you may well be right!

By: amy

amy — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:03:04 +0000

off topic –

I stumbled across a really good site, http://lesswrong.com/ and I think you might enjoy the articles there

By: Kent

Kent — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 09:31:28 +0000

The Blasphemy Day events might seem at odds with the goal of changing people’s minds, however that is not their goal. The art and writing of Blasphemy Day and others is for the purpose of humourous recreation, to be enjoyed by those who are already free from religious belief. It therefore does not form part of a broader strategy to diminish religion and does not target the religious.

While the antagonism of the religiously devout is to a small degree, as you point out, counterproductive to the secular strategy, is it not unavoidable if the secular wish to engage in irreverent comedic relief? Even though the public faces of the secular movement would surely prefer not to have to defend these representations, especially if they are claimed to characterize the entire group of secularists, they must be defended, in spite of the offense they cause, in spite of the wasted time and energy in doing so, because in light of the historical (and in some parts, current) prohibitions on and punishments for blasphemy, its production is a celebration of rights struggled for and won, and of changing times.

Different tactics (soft, seductive, persuasive / hard, blunt, argumentative) favoured by different agents will cater to different sections of the ‘mind market’ and we can support, or at least be unconcerned by, these different techniques.

P.S. I see that the Blasphemy Day website is currently suspended/offline, hopefully only for bandwidth reasons.