Reports from the Global Atheist Convention were not encouraging of respect, tolerance and the nurture of a healthy society.
In reading The Age article, Dawkins delivers the sermon they came to hear, I was struck by the
1. lack of scholarship, let alone grace, in the ‘Nazi Pope’ comment – Surely the scholar that Dawkins clearly is in science would have investigated and found out that all German youths at 14 years, which included the current Pope, were conscripted into Hitler Youth, the Nazi fascist cause at that time.
2.avoidance of serious conversation with the subject matter as for example when Dawkins says, ”It’s just surreal (that theologians believe in miracles) and completely gives the lie to the claim that the sophisticated theologians should look down on fundamentalist wingnuts. They are all the same.”
3. personal aggression – ‘playing the man and not the ball’. As in ABC’s Robyn Williams’ comment on Dawkins’ remark concerning Senator Fielding’s belief in creationism:
“I can give you a devastating argument against religion in two words,” Williams said in his introduction. “Senator Fielding. Richard Dawkins said his IQ is lower than an earthworm, but I think earthworms are useful.”
I also disagree with Senator Fielding on creationism but I pray to God that I would not belittle his person because of this difference of opinion.
4. gross over generalisations, “They are all the same.”
5. dismissive arrogance as above, “they (sophisticated theologians and fundamentalist wingnuts) are all the same.” Also Dawkins’ statement that Mary MacKillop’s canonisation by ”Pope Nazi” was ”pure Monty Python”. As much as many may have reserves about çanonisation, this mockery is arrogant in its dismissal and uncaring and disrespectful of other’s beliefs. Not the sort of society most of us want to live in. What lies behind such conduct? – surely not the building of a caring and compasionate society.
6. Why does a person who is a scholar in one field of study suspend their scholarly approach when in another field of study? Surely Dawkins’ unscholarly grand-standing will start to wear thin on even the most convinced atheist?
The Australian newspaper report on the conference, Celebrating life beyond belief, likewise teems with the atheist speakers’ simplicisms, ridicule, easy laughs and self-congratulation.
In the light of the above, I was intrigued by the thoughtful discernment in Why atheists’ ridicule won’t win friends and influence people.
Evaluating the convention depends on what one considers its purpose. If it was to validate hardline atheists to themselves and give them confidence, it was a triumph. If it was to take a mature look at how to advance the cause of secularism, politically and socially, the speakers should probably have spent less time ridiculing religion and more on positive and practical ideas.
. . . Also unworthy were ABC science presenter Robyn Williams offering “a devastating argument against religion in two words: Senator Fielding”; former Hillsong member Tanya Levin: “I’m finally getting to hang out with the adults”; and Rationalist Society president Ian Robinson, asking whether there were any believers in the audience. “OK, I’ll speak really slowly.” (Wild applause after each.)
What was missing was any sign of self-deprecation. Atheism will be a mature movement in Australia when atheists can laugh not just at the religious, but at themselves.
See also Atheist bus in Melbourne.
Essentially each of the numbered points you have made are based on what was said in the brief question-and-answer period after Dawkins delivered his speech. It is the period when Dawkins is asked to put on his “opinion” hat on. He had just delivered a serious speech about ‘gratitude’ from the perspective of evolutionary biology. There was plenty of serious scholarship. You are only getting a limited perspective from the news coverage.
This was a three-day conference and you can’t expect that attendees would sit through dry material the entire time. There was time for comedians who always stretch boundaries – it is the nature of comedy. But to focus on the “f words” is to ignore the serious truth beneath the comedy.
The convention organisers will be selling a DVD soon if you want to see everything that was covered.
I think you might have the wrong end of the stick on some of these.
“Nazi Pope” was really “Mary McKillop and Pope…Nazi” and there was no snideness at all. He was searching, and failing, to find the words he wanted. It is possible, even likely, given that he was trying to refer to the Pope during the Nazi era, (Pious XII?)
”It’s just surreal (that theologians believe in miracles)
If the proof of miracles occurring today could actually be shown to have really happened, then scientists would become believers.
I think that Williams was out of line using what was probably part of a private conversation to warm up the crowd (and get his name in the papers). That said, watching Q&A which was clearly the source of the alleged comment, it is clear that Fielding both believes in an earth that is less than 10,000 years old, and knows that this is not acceptable to say, because it is not true. The level of intellectual dishonesty that was painfully apparent must cause harm to him.
“They are all the same.”
There is no substantive difference, as far as the scientist is concerned, because there is a belief that God acts in the world in such a way that provides evidence, but also claim that there is no scientific way of testing God’s presence. This is the same intellectually dishonest stance.
Pure monty python – surreal and yet revealing. A saint is canonised not on the basis of their life’s work, but on the “miracles” performed. I draw your attention to the fact that this was an atheist conference. Has a religious person never said: “A fool in his heart says there is no God” at a religious conference? Have they never said that atheists will burn in hell?
This was the first atheist conference outside the US – and yet the religious media makes it quite clear that atheism should be quiet, preferably invisible, and certainly stay out of religious affairs. Yet as an biology professor, Dawkins and Myers have seen the damage done by YEC, and anti-women’s education attitudes, which has directly impacted them in their professional work.
You seem to imagine that the comments made by atheists that were derogatory to Christians were out of the blue, and uncalled for. This is not true. The damage done by believing in falsehoods, in preventing the teaching of evolution and geography (age of the earth) in schools is real, and continuing.
As for atheists needing to be self-deprecating, I don’t think that you would say that to a woman, wearing a burka because she has been told to act as if she were invisible, lifting her veil for the first time in public.
“I also disagree with Senator Fielding on creationism but I pray to God that I would not belittle his person because of this difference of opinion.”
The problem with that is that it is not a matter of opinion. Fielding did not deny being a young Earth creationist, and even leaving out evolution, the age of the Earth is a matter of measurement. He is either stupid, which I find unlikely, or dishonest and capable of putting up with impressive cognitive dissonance in his head.
Hi Barry
Appreciate your comment that it is important to get the overview.
Problem is that the polemical tone is not just seen at this convention but in interviews, eg Q&A participants’comments, articles and books.
On the other hand there are certainly Christian conventions that are far from the way of Jesus Christ!
Take your point. Thanks.
Hi Echidna
Just to quickly respond to your comment:
”If the proof of miracles occurring today could actually be shown to have really happened, then scientists would become believers.”
1. Many eminent scientists do believe in miracles.
2 “Proof” is an interesting term because if the only “proof” is the scientific proof of hypothesis, data collection, analysis, testing, conclusion, peer review and repeatability, then there are many aspects of life that we act on but which are not scientifically proven. Eg, one person’s love for another is not scientifically proved but is acted upon. The beauty of a sunset or poem is not scientifically proven but they are believed to be beautiful.
3. Christian belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ has significant historical documentation but we see our faith not a being capable of scientific proof but rather as a faith or trust in Christ which is seeking understanding. Ie, it is a faith based on intellectual engagement an experiene which must be activated into a daily walk of faith in God’s love to us. At our best we continue to seek a deeper understanding of our faith in Jesus Christ knowing that while this is not scientifically provable it is life givng.
4. I refer you to Chris Mulherin, Anglican minister and science/theology doctoral student who is writing a lot of the ABC online blogs on the atheist convention at: http://blogs.radionational.net.au/atheistconvention/
Hi Mike
We may think people mad, bad or sad but there may exist other possibilities of which we know not nor have adequately accounted nor yet may have dreamed.
Who knows that the ‘measurement’of the earth may take a different tape measure than the one we have been using? Who is game to say we know it all?
So while disagreeing with the creationists, they may not all be mad, bad or sad 🙂
Pingback: New Atheism: An Unreasonable Religion? « Journeyman