polydaidaloi.com

In a strange election that will be contested right up until the 21st, no-one should be surprised that Julia Gillard has announced that Labor if reelected will extend the school chaplain program for another three years and extend it to another 1000 schools.

Gillard may be an atheist but she is a politician above all else. Self interest and a desire to be re-elected are the primary motivations rather than a consistency in beliefs. Where every vote counts, any principles go overboard in attempt to find favour with any special interest group. And while the Christian lobby doesn’t have as much power as politicians give them credit for, they are are noisy and that works.

Over at Gladly, the cross eyed bear there is an interesting 3 part series title A Cast Against School Chaplaincy. Glady raises some very important concerns about school chaplains and their ability and qualifications to deal with many student issues that will require counseling.

Real damage can be done to students via this program.

Michael Mullins has a post on Eureka Street on the idea that Gillard’s atheism belongs in the closet.

And while Mullins does take Perth’s Catholic Archbishop Barry Hickey to task for his intolerance, Mullins fails to note his own in declaring that atheists should remain in the closet. Amusing his tagging of Gillard’s mild statement on her lack of beliefs as being “out and proud.” Obviously religious politicians can say whatever they want but heaven forbid an atheist politician making a reasonable statement concerning their views.

Mullins then uses Hickey as a proxy to be concerned at the rise of an European style secularism hindering the rights of churches. I doubt this would happen in Australia given the difference in cultural contexts.

Anyway, Gillard is not the first Australian atheist prime minister. The idea of Prime Minsters needing to profess a faith is very new and mainly the fault of Rudd’s god bothering on his way to Prime Minister. You only need to look at the US to see what happens when religion and politics mix. Mammon always wins with God relegated to just a few catch phrases to win over the gullible.

Especially after Christopher Hitchens decided he wanted to be Gene Hunt and to say the Pope “You’re nicked Benny Boy”, there have been mutterings on forums galore about whether Hitchens and by association Dawkins, are counter productive to the atheist movement.

Some atheists have a sympathetic approach to religion such as Michael Ruse and Chris Mooney. And on the other side you have PZ Myers as well as the terrible two for example. What is counter productive to atheism is not the “aggressive” atheism of Hitchens et al but the idea that they should temper their approach. We need both sides and those that fall into the continuum in between.
More »

I was not impressed to read that at the 2010 Global Atheist Convention in Melbourne the follow exchange happened:

Rationalist Society president Ian Robinson, asking whether there were any believers in the audience. “OK, I’ll speak really slowly.”

That quote is from The Age’s Barney Zwartz’s reasonably ok piece on the conference.

Ridicule is a very useful weapon in the atheist’s rhetorical armoury. But to be unleashed is such a petty, spiteful way does not serve anyone. As for ridicule being used against Pope Benny and Senator Dimwit, I have no issues with that at all.

An astounding comment that I saw on Twitter and in the MSM a number of times was along the lines of “why do atheists need a conference?” I suspect that some were making the mistake of assuming that atheism is a form of solipsism.
More »

According to sociologist Gary Bouma atheists are fuelling sectarian conflict. According to Bouma’s logic, if atheists just would shut up, religions would hold hands, sing ‘Kumbaya” and there would be no more sad histories like 911, the Irish troubles, the mess in Iraq etc.

What Bouma is actually trying to do is deny atheists the right of a voice. What atheists (well most of us anyway) want is a right to be heard and for the privilege religion has in society to be critically examined and questioned. This is confronting to some as they prefer atheists to be quiet and confine their discussions behind closed doors.

Too bad and too late. Religious freedom and freedom of speech are not just for the devout.

Elsewhere: Russell Blackford takes down Bouma.

Earlier today jason_a_w on Twitter made an interesting comment:

Can this event be explained except as an expression of a craving for ritual? http://is.gd/9m5lf

We had the following exchange (in this order I think. Apologies to Jason if I have it wrong):

@jason_a_w Just a chance to hear two interesting fellows speak. I don’t think anyone is being asked to join in singing hymns about them.

@shaunc But why gather en masse to confirm one’s lack of belief. Surely as soon as it’s asserted, that’s the end of the matter?

@jason_a_w Because people like community, even atheists, which I suggest is different from ritual.

@shaunc Anyway it does look interesting enough, but I do get puzzled by the phenomenon of large atheist gatherings.

@shaunc I’m not sure communities are formed any other way, and I think it’s possible to have secular rituals (e.g. going to the footy!)…

@jason_a_w atheist gatherings are the result of atheist being more comfortable in “out.” Not such an issue in Oz but very important in US.

@shaunc Anyway, maybe I’m just puzzled because it’s new. It does seem to be operating on an industrial level, now!

@jason_a_w Yes, there is money to be made from atheism. But also discourse that often doesn’t get heard when religion is privileged.

There are some atheists of course that go, “Well, there is no god. Better get on with something useful” and don’t worry much more than that. But as atheists feel the freedom to come out, you can be sure that atheists are going to gather together.
More »

This in mind boggling stupid. A US company that manufactures rifle sights has been found to be including references to Biblical passages on the rifle sights.

One of the citations on the gun sights, 2COR4:6, is an apparent reference to Second Corinthians 4:6 of the New Testament, which reads: “For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.”

Other references include citations from the books of Revelation, Matthew and John dealing with Jesus as “the light of the world.” John 8:12, referred to on the gun sights as JN8:12, reads, “Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

More »

Australia has taken the superstitious nonsense of Catholicism to heart with the strange collective pride that Mary MacKillop is going to be Australia’s first official saint (some say Howard tried to push for the canonisation of Bradman but it didn’t go anywhere).

I have no judgement on MacKillop’s life and the importance of her work. My problem is this whole idea of miracles via intercession that a prospective saint must provide two examples of.

Which suggests that God doesn’t listen very well to people’s prayers if a third party is needed to get some action. Or that he is a hard bastard who is going to do anything unless someone puts up a pretty good argument as to why he should perform miracle.

Also, what happens when someone prays with a saint for intercession and it doesn’t come? If a terminal disease and they die then the conversation in Heaven could end up being pretty awkward. It would be hard to come by but a table showing the number of intercessory prayers made and intercession granted as a result of those prayers would be very interesting.

Maybe it is the super powers of atheism, but the miracles don’t seem that special. It is just playing the odds for cases of spontaneous remissionwhich are documented without apparent Saintly intercession.

Obviously there is a sense of national inferiority masquerading as nationalistic pride that extends beyond Catholics with Mary MacKillop. A rational perspective would be to celebrate her life and works as they were. Celebrating an act of rank superstition does not become a modern nation.

Then again, it is a strange state of affairs when some find it easier to believe in miracles than the science of climate change.

Greg Craven is the vice-chancellor of the Australian Catholic University (a place where you study to be a Pope I think) and along with pressures of such a lofty position, he also carries the burden of Christians in Australia, privilege as revealed in his screed against atheists in today’s SMH

It seems the problem is that we atheists are doing a disservice to the delicate sensibilities of Craven by daring to speak out. Far better the day of past when atheists were confined to the margins of society and Catholics could go about their business unopposed. Craven’s problem is with the notion that atheists how have a voice and challenging the authority of religion. He then cries persecution confusing his privilege with being part of a persecuted minority.

As an atheist I do not hate Christians (or people of any religious persuasion) nor want to see religion removed from society.It is not about the person for religious folk, like atheist folk, run the full gamut of personalities likeable and not so likeable. What I want is the institutions that perpetuate unthinking religious dogma to be torn off their pedestals. For their unwarranted prestige to be removed so that they have to wallow in the mire with the rest of us.

Craven is finding the competition fierce and I pity him that as vice-chancellor he has no intellectual defence other than to cry that the atheists are oppressing him. It is not even an attempt at apologetics, just pathetic privileged whining.

Oh, and don’t complain about people misrepresenting the Catholic church’s litany of sins by including “despise women, wish to persecute homosexuals” when that is exactly the Pope’s sales pitch to disaffected Anglicans.

Despite the best intents of all involved, atheism is starting to take on the practices of religion. The latest development is a schism!

The schism seems to be Michael Ruse on one side and Dawkins, Myers, Coyne and Dennett on the other. Not sure what Hitchens is doing but likely he is sitting in a bar somewhere. It really is a silly situation as atheism is not structured in any way. Apart from not believing that a god exists, you can take you own path. But with formation of neologisms such as faithist and accomodationist, there does seem to be a move by some define “the true atheist.”

Ruse’s article does have one good point. Religion is a complex matter for many and is capable of good as well as evil. I don’t buy the Hitchens’ absurd reductionist analysis of religious influence being all evil. But after that Ruse goes downhill. His “taking scholarship seriously” is my “taking theology far to seriously than it deserve.” And calling Platinga a philosopher is a remarkable example of charity. Then there is this bit of stupidity:

If, as the new atheists think, Darwinian evolutionary biology is incompatible with Christianity, then will they give me a good argument as to why the science should be taught in schools if it implies the falsity of religion?

More »