In the following article, Austin Cline talks about the idea of atheism being simple lack of belief in any gods.
He then relates this to the Christian / Theist claim that aggressive and militaristic atheists are actively attacking religion and Christianity because of their atheism. This is a myth and is one more example of bad motives and wrongheaded thinking, etc...
Pish posh, he says, simple atheism is simply what it is and has no relationship to the more concentrated and unrelated acts of people who happen to be atheists. If an atheist has a further belief that Christianity is bogus and actively attacks it, that bears no meaning related to the simple definition of atheism as simple non-belief.
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismreligionideology/a/AtheismBelief.htm
In the article, Austin compares the flow of the argument to theism... and says that simply because someone is a theist, doesn't mean that they are also Christian... which is true. He also mentions that theists come in varying and often contradictory flavors, so if theism doesn't necessarily mean a subsequent belief, then atheism follows the same logical rule and flow.
This is a classic example of the argument of the Straw Man. A logical Straw Man is when someone proposes an argument that is weak, or flawed, or worse, that no one is actually making and then you proceed to tear down the non-existant argument highlighting a superior position.
Here are the two problems with this "myth."
1) The OED, which is The Oxford English Dictionary, is considered the academic resource and the principle authority on word definition. It defines atheism primarily as active belief that there are no gods.
Now philosophers and scholars of all stripe will seek to define their terms in a specific way. So it completely in bounds for someone like Austin to say something like, "when I say 'atheist' I mean, simple unbelief."
But he doesn't do this. He refuses to acknowledge any other definition as valid and rails against anyone who knows the OED and who knows that many respected and authoritative sources simply do not agree with him as invalid, as ignorant, as unacceptable.
It isn't that he can't make a case for his definition... it is that the definition of the word is in dispute. Austin doesn't get to define words on his own and use that as evidence that he is right and others are wrong. Austin Cline is not the primary authority for word definitions.
He especially doesn't get to do this when the OED is the source of disagreement.
By refusing to acknowledge the legitimate dispute and ask for agreement in terms for the sake of argument, reduces the rhetoric to a ridiculous he said / she said and stops all productive discussion.
2) This isn't the problem Christians have with aggressive atheism.
What Austin does - and does regularly- is this: he will attack a Christian position... scripture, the pope, Christians in general, arguments for the existence of God, etc... and will be incredibly aggressive and unfair and will go to the extent of feeling jingoistic to the point of propaganda.
When someone calls him on his outlandish claims, he tries to reverse the conversation... calling any opponent a bigot, calling them stupid and uninformed, asking them to "prove" statements of theology and ignoring legitimate arguments while focusing on irrelevant details.
At some point the exchange will call out the New Atheist mode of operation, which aggressively seeks to deny any truth that is not scientific truth. When someone points out that this has problems, the defensive mode will turn to the idea that atheism is making no claims at all, it is simple unbelief.
The problem Christians have with Austin's brand of atheism is that it is logically flawed, it is incoherent, it is aggressive and prejudiced against any thinking that disagrees and become cultish in anything that strengthens the "party line" while attacking anything that may disagree, even if the disagreement has a legitimate point.
Do you see the problem?
Austin is using atheism (and his site is the "atheist" section of About.com) as a platform for launching libelous and slanderous attacks of religous people of every sort... for forwarding his agenda of scientism and New Atheist thinking.
At the same time, he retreats to the rhetorical position of nothingness, claiming that atheism is simple unbelief and nothing more. In case after case, he makes the definition the argument... instead of dealing with the quite real problem at hand.
It is quite a magic trick. Using atheism as a cudgel - then claiming it doesn't actually exist when someone asks him to stop smacking people with it unfairly.
Austin, in this article, says, "Some atheists do actively believe that no gods, or at least common conceptions of the Christian god, exist. Some atheists actively criticize theistic arguments, theistic beliefs, and theistic religions. These atheists and others do indeed act on the basis of what they believe, but what they believe goes beyond mere atheism — just as theists act on beliefs which go beyond mere theism. Atheism is only the absence of belief in gods, regardless of whatever other beliefs individual atheists act on beyond this."
Fine. Own up to that. You criticize theistic arguments, beliefs and religions. What you believe goes beyond mere atheism. This is what people mean when they say that "atheists are rude and mean spirited."
It is a rhetorical shell game to use your atheism as a platform for a philosophical and political agenda and at the same time claim your position is unassailable because there are no claims at all... I am just advocating simple unbelief and you're too stupid to get that.
You can't have it both ways and be intellectually honest.
Saturday, April 6, 2013
Monday, March 18, 2013
Is the Pope a Homophobic Bigot?
No.
But for some reason Austin Cline seems to think so.
http://atheism.about.com/b/2013/03/18/pope-francis-i-homophobic-bigot.htm
In support of the shocking claim, Austin quotes a letter where Francis (then a Cardinal) asks for prayer concerning a vote on gay marriage in Argentina. His statements are entirely consistent with the Catholic Cathechism, and his beliefs related to homosexuality are no different than the beliefs of every single pope, without exception who has preceeded him.
The question is this. Is there a difference between someone who earnestly, and thoughtfully believes that something is morally wrong (i.e., homosexuality) and someone who is a bigot?
Bigot is defined as follows:
a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
However, in terms of Francis' regard or treatment, there is strong evidence to suggest that he has shown a great deal of kindness and compassion to homosexuals, particularly with his work with HIV sufferers and AIDS victims.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/blog/pope-francis-condemning-gay-marriage-while-kissing-aids-patients-feet
It doesn't sound like he was treating those people with hatred and intolerance.
Imagine three people, who hold varying opinions:
1) A Ku Klux Klan member who believes that black people are inferior and who actively participates in lynching people to death, for no other reason than the color of their skin. This is the person who has traditionally carried the title of "bigot" or "racist."
2) Someone in the South, say in the 1970's who believed that marriage between a white man and a black woman (or vice versa) was morally wrong. This person might (or might not) be vocal in their opinion... they probably not be willing to date someone of a different color... but they probably weren't violent about it.
3) A catholic minister who has dedicated his life to service and from all accounts, is a man who loves God and loves people, giving freely of himself in amazing ways. He believes that sexual expression outside of marriage is a sin - in the sense that it is harmful to the individual participating in it... and that would extend to heterosexual as well as homosexual couples.
Are we really prepared to lump all three of these people into the same category?
It seems to me that the way bigot has been used in the past would apply well to 1, would be shaky and not often applied to 2 and would not at all apply to 3.
Francis isn't lynching lesbian couples - he just isn't. Is it really to be considered bigotry to hold an opinion that differs from your own?
When you take into consideration the love Francis shows the poor... and the homosexual poor... I don't think you can use the same word that we use for the KKK and still be in bounds.
Homophobic bigot means fearful and aggressively and actively showing hatred to... and the evidence doesn't bear up.
But for some reason Austin Cline seems to think so.
http://atheism.about.com/b/2013/03/18/pope-francis-i-homophobic-bigot.htm
In support of the shocking claim, Austin quotes a letter where Francis (then a Cardinal) asks for prayer concerning a vote on gay marriage in Argentina. His statements are entirely consistent with the Catholic Cathechism, and his beliefs related to homosexuality are no different than the beliefs of every single pope, without exception who has preceeded him.
The question is this. Is there a difference between someone who earnestly, and thoughtfully believes that something is morally wrong (i.e., homosexuality) and someone who is a bigot?
Bigot is defined as follows:
a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
However, in terms of Francis' regard or treatment, there is strong evidence to suggest that he has shown a great deal of kindness and compassion to homosexuals, particularly with his work with HIV sufferers and AIDS victims.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/blog/pope-francis-condemning-gay-marriage-while-kissing-aids-patients-feet
It doesn't sound like he was treating those people with hatred and intolerance.
Imagine three people, who hold varying opinions:
1) A Ku Klux Klan member who believes that black people are inferior and who actively participates in lynching people to death, for no other reason than the color of their skin. This is the person who has traditionally carried the title of "bigot" or "racist."
2) Someone in the South, say in the 1970's who believed that marriage between a white man and a black woman (or vice versa) was morally wrong. This person might (or might not) be vocal in their opinion... they probably not be willing to date someone of a different color... but they probably weren't violent about it.
3) A catholic minister who has dedicated his life to service and from all accounts, is a man who loves God and loves people, giving freely of himself in amazing ways. He believes that sexual expression outside of marriage is a sin - in the sense that it is harmful to the individual participating in it... and that would extend to heterosexual as well as homosexual couples.
Are we really prepared to lump all three of these people into the same category?
It seems to me that the way bigot has been used in the past would apply well to 1, would be shaky and not often applied to 2 and would not at all apply to 3.
Francis isn't lynching lesbian couples - he just isn't. Is it really to be considered bigotry to hold an opinion that differs from your own?
When you take into consideration the love Francis shows the poor... and the homosexual poor... I don't think you can use the same word that we use for the KKK and still be in bounds.
Homophobic bigot means fearful and aggressively and actively showing hatred to... and the evidence doesn't bear up.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
An anti-historical view of Jesus
A popular claim from current atheists is that Jesus didn't actually exist at all, but was entirely a fiction.
One of the primary rhetorical uses for this is to be a method of stalling almost any opposing argument. It can sidetrack things into minutae pretty quickly. The alarming thing about this claim, is that modern historians don't agree with it. In fact, they believe Jesus was, in fact, a historical figure.
If you're going to take on an entire discipline of study and disagree with it, you should bring some evidence with you.
An example of this popped up in the About.com atheism blog recently:
http://atheism.about.com/b/2011/08/17/forum-discussion-reconsidering-jesus.htm
This is a fairly stunning example of a completely inconsistent use of historical criteria for measuring, or exploring the basic historicity of an account, fact, place or individual. If they were consistent, such skeptics would doubt the existence of Alexander the Great, Ghengis Khan, Socrates and to be blunt, almost anyone in history outside of the modern era.
Even in the article above, Paul is talked about as if he were a real person, and his background and writing are not questioned at all, despite the lack of any extra-biblical account of him.
The reality is that the consensus of the best of modern historians is that Jesus was an actual historical figure and no serious historical data has arisen to question the basic historicity of Jesus' existence.
To discount the entire discipline of history when it doesn't suit your argument, is simply not rational.
A few examples citing actual scholarship in this regard:
http://www.y-jesus.com/bornid_1.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
http://www.sikhspectrum.com/112006/bh.htm
Even those not friendly to Christianity accept that Jesus was an actual historical figure.
I find it interesting in the posts Austin refers to that there are obvious errors, both historical and logical which he doesn't bother to acknowledge, address or correct. Just from an initial reading:
- Jesus wasn't buried in Nicodemus' tomb (the second forum post corrects this mistake)
- The second poster says the Gospels were among the last things written, but the book of Mark is generally considered one of the earliest NT books
- The second poster assumes the basic historicity of Paul - how can he do that and be consistent? There's a lot less evidence for Paul than there is for Jesus
- The second poster says, "There is no known eyewitness account of Jesus at all. Not a single contemporary account even so much as makes the slightest mention of him."
So in our forum posts, the basic rigor of, getting the names right isn't very important. Our skepticism here is really selective and only applies when it suits the argument in their favor.
Pardon me, while I dismiss this categorically as bad thinking, bad scholarship and deplorable history.
If you take the rest of history as a judge, the entire New Testament is a contemporary account. There are thousands and thousands of fragments from copies of manuscripts of the books of the New Testament. Just think through this for a moment. If you accept the 70AD date for the writing of the book of Mark (and some scholars put it in the 50's)... and Jesus died near 33AD - that is a difference of 37 years.
If you did this today, 2011... 37 years ago would be the year that Nixon resigned from office. If someone wrote a biography about Nixon that was cut out of complete fictional cloth, they could not get away with it. Why? Because people are still alive who remember 1974. Many of the people involved in Watergate directly are still alive. You can talk to eye witnesses for those events!
Many of the authors of New Testament books, Peter, John, Jude, James... were eye witness contemporaries and lived and worked with Jesus directly for years. There are multiple eyewitness acounts of Jesus and contemporary accounts that give his history, as related direclty by people who were there... in multiple books of history! What other prominent figure in the ancient world, has four unique accounts of his life and work? There is more and better evidence for Jesus than any ancient historical figure.
It would be like saying, well, except for the writings of Plato, there are no accounts of Socrates at all - so I don't believe he existed. As if the writing of Plato, which was written, and copied and survived thousands of years - simply doesn't count.
That's a ridiculous historical stance and our early evidence and manuscripts for Plato number in the dozens, not in the thousands.
What our poster means to say is, "outside of the historical books that are in included in the Bible" there aren't any direct eye witness accounts. But sad to say, even if you disbelieve all of the things in the New Testament, even if you throw out any reference to the miraculous or the divine, you're still left with a lot of historical detail that stands up to scrutiny. Those things don't get omitted because you don't like them - ancient accounts of history count, even if they disagree with your view of the world. And when there are thousands of early text and text fragments, they gain weight and credibility accordingly.
To say otherwise is bad scholarship, it's a horrible way to look at history, it should not be taken seriously.
One of the primary rhetorical uses for this is to be a method of stalling almost any opposing argument. It can sidetrack things into minutae pretty quickly. The alarming thing about this claim, is that modern historians don't agree with it. In fact, they believe Jesus was, in fact, a historical figure.
If you're going to take on an entire discipline of study and disagree with it, you should bring some evidence with you.
An example of this popped up in the About.com atheism blog recently:
http://atheism.about.com/b/2011/08/17/forum-discussion-reconsidering-jesus.htm
This is a fairly stunning example of a completely inconsistent use of historical criteria for measuring, or exploring the basic historicity of an account, fact, place or individual. If they were consistent, such skeptics would doubt the existence of Alexander the Great, Ghengis Khan, Socrates and to be blunt, almost anyone in history outside of the modern era.
Even in the article above, Paul is talked about as if he were a real person, and his background and writing are not questioned at all, despite the lack of any extra-biblical account of him.
The reality is that the consensus of the best of modern historians is that Jesus was an actual historical figure and no serious historical data has arisen to question the basic historicity of Jesus' existence.
To discount the entire discipline of history when it doesn't suit your argument, is simply not rational.
A few examples citing actual scholarship in this regard:
http://www.y-jesus.com/bornid_1.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
http://www.sikhspectrum.com/112006/bh.htm
Even those not friendly to Christianity accept that Jesus was an actual historical figure.
I find it interesting in the posts Austin refers to that there are obvious errors, both historical and logical which he doesn't bother to acknowledge, address or correct. Just from an initial reading:
- Jesus wasn't buried in Nicodemus' tomb (the second forum post corrects this mistake)
- The second poster says the Gospels were among the last things written, but the book of Mark is generally considered one of the earliest NT books
- The second poster assumes the basic historicity of Paul - how can he do that and be consistent? There's a lot less evidence for Paul than there is for Jesus
- The second poster says, "There is no known eyewitness account of Jesus at all. Not a single contemporary account even so much as makes the slightest mention of him."
So in our forum posts, the basic rigor of, getting the names right isn't very important. Our skepticism here is really selective and only applies when it suits the argument in their favor.
Pardon me, while I dismiss this categorically as bad thinking, bad scholarship and deplorable history.
If you take the rest of history as a judge, the entire New Testament is a contemporary account. There are thousands and thousands of fragments from copies of manuscripts of the books of the New Testament. Just think through this for a moment. If you accept the 70AD date for the writing of the book of Mark (and some scholars put it in the 50's)... and Jesus died near 33AD - that is a difference of 37 years.
If you did this today, 2011... 37 years ago would be the year that Nixon resigned from office. If someone wrote a biography about Nixon that was cut out of complete fictional cloth, they could not get away with it. Why? Because people are still alive who remember 1974. Many of the people involved in Watergate directly are still alive. You can talk to eye witnesses for those events!
Many of the authors of New Testament books, Peter, John, Jude, James... were eye witness contemporaries and lived and worked with Jesus directly for years. There are multiple eyewitness acounts of Jesus and contemporary accounts that give his history, as related direclty by people who were there... in multiple books of history! What other prominent figure in the ancient world, has four unique accounts of his life and work? There is more and better evidence for Jesus than any ancient historical figure.
It would be like saying, well, except for the writings of Plato, there are no accounts of Socrates at all - so I don't believe he existed. As if the writing of Plato, which was written, and copied and survived thousands of years - simply doesn't count.
That's a ridiculous historical stance and our early evidence and manuscripts for Plato number in the dozens, not in the thousands.
What our poster means to say is, "outside of the historical books that are in included in the Bible" there aren't any direct eye witness accounts. But sad to say, even if you disbelieve all of the things in the New Testament, even if you throw out any reference to the miraculous or the divine, you're still left with a lot of historical detail that stands up to scrutiny. Those things don't get omitted because you don't like them - ancient accounts of history count, even if they disagree with your view of the world. And when there are thousands of early text and text fragments, they gain weight and credibility accordingly.
To say otherwise is bad scholarship, it's a horrible way to look at history, it should not be taken seriously.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Austin Cline is Still a Liar
The facts of the case:
There was recently a case in Idaho where a woman had an abortion, then tried to fill a prescription for a medicine that is a common after abortion treatment. The drug in question was methergine, and is most commonly prescribed as a several day course of pills, which contracts the uterus to help prevent residual bleeding post procedure.
The pharmacist, called the clinic, and in the conversation, asked if the drug was being used as post abortion treatment. The nurse practioner refused to answer the question, and so the pharmacist refused to fill the prescription. Health professionals are allowed (perhaps even obligated) to share private and confidential information about their patients with each other, if they are directly involved in treatment.
The reason the pharmacist refused to fill the prescription was because of conscience laws in Idaho which allow a pharmacist to refuse to dispense medicine causing or directly related to abortion.
Planned Parent filed a complaint against the pharmacist and against Walgreens, which was the pharmacy in question.
The Board of Pharmacy's response was basically that the pharmacist did nothing wrong.
Austin Cline wrote an article about this incident, titled, "Idaho Pharmacists not Obliged to Prevent Women from Dying"
http://atheism.about.com/b/2011/02/12/idaho-pharmacists-not-obliged-to-prevent-women-from-dying.htm
End of the facts of the case.
Holy cats, where to start on this one.
First, the woman's life was not in danger. Methergine is not an emergency treatment. If she was bleeding internally from a botched abortion, that is a post operative concern and a pill isn't going to fix that one. If the uterus is perforated by a surgical instrument, to the point where life is threatened, the emergency procedure is not, "well drive down to the Walgreen's on 77th, then wait in line at the pharmacy for few minutes..."
Second, this kind of thing is expressively why a conscience clause exists in the first place. If someone has a moral objection to abortion, then they may not be forced to participate in the procedure, treatment, or aftercare of that procedure.
We don't know for sure, but it seems likely that the reason the nurse practioner refused to answer the question, was because she knew this and was attempting to skirt the issue entirely. By refusing to answer germaine questions about the context of the case, the pharmacist has an arguable reason to be concerned or suspicious about the nature of the prescription. This is a drug, with effects and side effects and if the pharmacist has questions about the issuing of a prescription relative to the person in front of them, these should be addressed, not ignored.
Third, the title and treatment of this argument is the logical fallacy called the Appeal to Fear.
By implying that inaction on the part of the pharmacist caused someone to die (when it didn't), or that the conscience clause allowing pharmacists to not participate in abortions someone results in people dying is simply not accurate.
It is a lie.
It is inaccurate, unethical, and immoral to talk about this case in this way. Austin characterizes this as a pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription because, "punishing her for a possible abortion was all that mattered." (emphasis in bold mine, original was italics)
It isn't speculative or punishing to refuse to participate in something that you morally believe is tantamount to infanticide. This isn't someone who killed an abortion doctor. This isn't even someone peacefully picketing outside an abortion clinic. This is someone who is refusing to participate in the process, which she is specifically, and legally allowed to do.
She made a "choice" to not participate in this process. Related to whether or not she wants to participate in an abortion, her own, or someone else's, should she be allowed to choose? Isn't that the hallmark of the so-called, "pro-choice" agenda? Or is she only allowed to choose when she agrees with you?
Austin doesn't stop there, he goes on to hysterically attack ALL pharmacists.
He writes, "Yeah, right. I say that if pharmacists want a right to invoke their "conscience" to refuse to dispense legally prescribe medication to people in need, then we the people should invoke the power to deny pharmacists a monopoly over dispensing medication in the first place. Let the pharmacists follow their "conscience" to refuse to do their jobs while the rest of us seek medication elsewhere. Sooner or later, we won't have any pharmacists left to endanger our lives and we'll all be better off.
Here we have fine instances of the logical fallacies of Hasty Generalization, Generalization and the Slippery Slope.
For Hasty Generalization, Austin is clamoring for removing the stringent and detailed education and licensing practices for pharmacists. There are reasons, and excellent ones, for allowing someone with a PhD level of education to regulate the dispensing of potentially life-threatening drugs in society. He wants to do this, based on an isolated example that he disagrees with, instead of a rational and reasoned review of the entire pharmacy process as a whole.
For Generalization, he is lumping all pharmacists in with the Walgreen's pharmacist in Idaho, many of whom would disagree with her actions. If Austin is unhappy with the pharmacist's actions, or the peer review of the board of inquiry's finding, well that is unfortunate. But his statements don't apply to pharmacy in general.
The Slippery Slope here is that because one pharmacist somewhere followed an appropriate and legal action for a conscience clause, then no pharmacists anywhere will help us obtain life saving medicine. What a hysterical and incoherent rant!
Austin just leaves out critical information related to this occurence, and in doing so, does a disservice to every critical thinking person who took the time to read it.
The thing is, he knows better, especially regarding rhetoric or logical fallacy. He has even written about these things specifically. At that point, I don't know what to say. Is Austin deliberating misrepresenting the facts to strengthen a desperately weak argument?
Is he deliberately using rhetoric to further an anti-religious position, even if in doing so, he is leaving the truth and logic behind?
I don't know his motives, but I can't think of a reasonable alternative in this case. I hope he doesn't need any medicine in the near future. For my part I think pharmacists are a valued and conscientious part of our society, they are doing great work for the most part in doing their jobs well and preventing more problems than you would believe.
I don't think they need to be attacked unfairly, for adhering to moral belief, and following their protections under the law.
And not to put too fine a point on it, but the only one who died in this case, was the unborn child.
There was recently a case in Idaho where a woman had an abortion, then tried to fill a prescription for a medicine that is a common after abortion treatment. The drug in question was methergine, and is most commonly prescribed as a several day course of pills, which contracts the uterus to help prevent residual bleeding post procedure.
The pharmacist, called the clinic, and in the conversation, asked if the drug was being used as post abortion treatment. The nurse practioner refused to answer the question, and so the pharmacist refused to fill the prescription. Health professionals are allowed (perhaps even obligated) to share private and confidential information about their patients with each other, if they are directly involved in treatment.
The reason the pharmacist refused to fill the prescription was because of conscience laws in Idaho which allow a pharmacist to refuse to dispense medicine causing or directly related to abortion.
Planned Parent filed a complaint against the pharmacist and against Walgreens, which was the pharmacy in question.
The Board of Pharmacy's response was basically that the pharmacist did nothing wrong.
Austin Cline wrote an article about this incident, titled, "Idaho Pharmacists not Obliged to Prevent Women from Dying"
http://atheism.about.com/b/2011/02/12/idaho-pharmacists-not-obliged-to-prevent-women-from-dying.htm
End of the facts of the case.
Holy cats, where to start on this one.
First, the woman's life was not in danger. Methergine is not an emergency treatment. If she was bleeding internally from a botched abortion, that is a post operative concern and a pill isn't going to fix that one. If the uterus is perforated by a surgical instrument, to the point where life is threatened, the emergency procedure is not, "well drive down to the Walgreen's on 77th, then wait in line at the pharmacy for few minutes..."
Second, this kind of thing is expressively why a conscience clause exists in the first place. If someone has a moral objection to abortion, then they may not be forced to participate in the procedure, treatment, or aftercare of that procedure.
We don't know for sure, but it seems likely that the reason the nurse practioner refused to answer the question, was because she knew this and was attempting to skirt the issue entirely. By refusing to answer germaine questions about the context of the case, the pharmacist has an arguable reason to be concerned or suspicious about the nature of the prescription. This is a drug, with effects and side effects and if the pharmacist has questions about the issuing of a prescription relative to the person in front of them, these should be addressed, not ignored.
Third, the title and treatment of this argument is the logical fallacy called the Appeal to Fear.
By implying that inaction on the part of the pharmacist caused someone to die (when it didn't), or that the conscience clause allowing pharmacists to not participate in abortions someone results in people dying is simply not accurate.
It is a lie.
It is inaccurate, unethical, and immoral to talk about this case in this way. Austin characterizes this as a pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription because, "punishing her for a possible abortion was all that mattered." (emphasis in bold mine, original was italics)
It isn't speculative or punishing to refuse to participate in something that you morally believe is tantamount to infanticide. This isn't someone who killed an abortion doctor. This isn't even someone peacefully picketing outside an abortion clinic. This is someone who is refusing to participate in the process, which she is specifically, and legally allowed to do.
She made a "choice" to not participate in this process. Related to whether or not she wants to participate in an abortion, her own, or someone else's, should she be allowed to choose? Isn't that the hallmark of the so-called, "pro-choice" agenda? Or is she only allowed to choose when she agrees with you?
Austin doesn't stop there, he goes on to hysterically attack ALL pharmacists.
He writes, "Yeah, right. I say that if pharmacists want a right to invoke their "conscience" to refuse to dispense legally prescribe medication to people in need, then we the people should invoke the power to deny pharmacists a monopoly over dispensing medication in the first place. Let the pharmacists follow their "conscience" to refuse to do their jobs while the rest of us seek medication elsewhere. Sooner or later, we won't have any pharmacists left to endanger our lives and we'll all be better off.
Here we have fine instances of the logical fallacies of Hasty Generalization, Generalization and the Slippery Slope.
For Hasty Generalization, Austin is clamoring for removing the stringent and detailed education and licensing practices for pharmacists. There are reasons, and excellent ones, for allowing someone with a PhD level of education to regulate the dispensing of potentially life-threatening drugs in society. He wants to do this, based on an isolated example that he disagrees with, instead of a rational and reasoned review of the entire pharmacy process as a whole.
For Generalization, he is lumping all pharmacists in with the Walgreen's pharmacist in Idaho, many of whom would disagree with her actions. If Austin is unhappy with the pharmacist's actions, or the peer review of the board of inquiry's finding, well that is unfortunate. But his statements don't apply to pharmacy in general.
The Slippery Slope here is that because one pharmacist somewhere followed an appropriate and legal action for a conscience clause, then no pharmacists anywhere will help us obtain life saving medicine. What a hysterical and incoherent rant!
Austin just leaves out critical information related to this occurence, and in doing so, does a disservice to every critical thinking person who took the time to read it.
The thing is, he knows better, especially regarding rhetoric or logical fallacy. He has even written about these things specifically. At that point, I don't know what to say. Is Austin deliberating misrepresenting the facts to strengthen a desperately weak argument?
Is he deliberately using rhetoric to further an anti-religious position, even if in doing so, he is leaving the truth and logic behind?
I don't know his motives, but I can't think of a reasonable alternative in this case. I hope he doesn't need any medicine in the near future. For my part I think pharmacists are a valued and conscientious part of our society, they are doing great work for the most part in doing their jobs well and preventing more problems than you would believe.
I don't think they need to be attacked unfairly, for adhering to moral belief, and following their protections under the law.
And not to put too fine a point on it, but the only one who died in this case, was the unborn child.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
The Problem with Talking About Evolution
I read an article recently where a prominent atheist is talking about evolution versus creationism, and says the following:
http://atheism.about.com/b/2011/02/08/comment-of-the-week-proving-evolution.htm
Creationism is not a position adopted simply because a person happens to lack all the information necessary to rationally justify accepting evolution. Creationism is a religious ideology adopted in spite of evidence because one's religion demands opposition to most of what defines modernity: science, reason, autonomy, etc.
This is an excellent example of the logical fallacy of the Straw Man. Basically you misrepresent a position you disagree with, then "refute" the imaginary position. It's a wonderful metaphor and in a fight, an opponent who is propped up and stuffed with straw is easy to defeat, knock down or set on fire. The reality is not so simple.
Not all people who believe in Creation are idiots, or submissive to an oppressive and backwards ideology eschewing of all things contemporary or modern. To be sure, there are some people who believe that the earth is flat, in bigfoot and UFOs and in all manner of things. The internet has made it alarmingly easy to identify and link to the lunatic fringe, but you're still talking about Straw Men here.
There are lots of people who are reasonably informed on the science of biology and evolution, who still believe God created the universe.
As an example, the head of the human genome project, is a Christian, and believes that God created the universe. One of the most prominent and effective scientists of our age led the genome project to successful completion, early and under budget. He calls DNA, the language of God and he isn't a yokel, he is an expert who knows what he is talking about and understands the implications of what he says.
http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Science-Religion/2006/08/God-Is-Not-Threatened-By-Our-Scientific-Adventures.aspx?p=3
The question isn't (from anyone with a brain, in my opinion) does evolution, in some sense, occur? Of course it does. The real question is, does the fact that it does mean that science has successfully answered questions of origin to the point where there is no rational room for faith?
That answer is clearly no and unfortunately, this is the real source of disagreement.
Atheists like Austin, hold their statement above to be a given, and refuse to acknowledge the ontological underpinnings of their own assumptions, and assume that anyone who disagrees simply isn't rational at all.
In the article, reference are made to three pieces of evidence considered to be a "slam dunk" against anyone who believes in creation. So, I'm game, let's take a look at these one by one:
First: The Lenski experiment
This is an experiment, still running at the University of Michigan, which is studying changes over time with generations of E Coli, with 50,000 generations having come and gone. It is an interesting study where they seperate an observe differences over time from organisms with a common ancestry. None of the organisms have turned into a fish or a giraffe yet, but they have shown significant changes over time and have adapted to things in their very limited and controlled environment.
The philosophical implications of this are pretty thin, given that no one that I'm aware of is saying that we can't adapt significantly over time. That some of us are white, some brown and some black seems like a pretty obvious indication that we're really adaptable in ways that can pass onto our children. That E Coli become larger and more round over time, simply isn't conclusive evidence that materialism is now the only answer. This doesn't refute anything, except the notion that organisms do not adapt at all, and even the craziest people on the creation boat don't believe this.
It's one of those things that seems like it ought to be more than it actually is, in terms of actual logical implication.
Second: Chromosome #2
This one was interesting as well, and I hadn't encountered this one before. Humans have 23 strands of chromosomes. Other primates, apes, chimps, etc... have 24. One of our strands (#2) looks really, really similar to 2 separate strands in other primates.
The theory from the scientific side is that we and other primates have a shared ancestry, because of the hugely similar sections of our DNA. The philosophical implication that our atheist article writer wants to make is that this clearly indicates that evolution as currently understood is true and therefore, we don't need any Creator for explaining little Timmy.
Just off the top of my head, there would be two other options, both compatible with Christianity.
One, God used an evolutionary process to develop life on earth. If you consider that every person you know, in all their complexity, orginated as a single cell (zygote), it isn't much of a leap to imagine that God grew a world of life and complexity in similar fashion, from an equally humble and simplistic beginning. This is Collin's position, and it is a reasonable one.
To say that this complexity (both in a person as an individual and in the world's ecosystem at large) occurred spontaneously over time, is still a huge leap... and it doesn't seem to follow that pattern in other complex systems that we observe in nature.
Two, God used similar building blocks in designing different life forms, because they worked well. To say that we share DNA with fruit flies, carrots and baboons might be a bit like saying engines in planes, trains and automobiles all utilize metal.
If you consider that there might be an intelligence at work in creation, of course there would be things used again and again, that isn't shocking at all.
The challenge on this one was to demonstrate how the scientists are wrong here. The answer to that is, that the implication of the data at hand does not make it necessary that God does not exist. Moving on.
Three: Tiktaalik
Basically, this is a fish with flipper joints, which would allow the little halibut to do a push up.
This is in answer to, "There are no transitional fossils! The missing link is still missing!"
Yeah, ok, but that's a stupid position for any creationist to take, and not many of them do. The problem with holding that there is no specie to specie "evolution" is that species are categorizations made by us and while they aren't arbitrary, they aren't perfect either.
Species is defined as a taxonomic rank that can breed and produce fertile offspring. So as a stupid example, dogs can't breed with giraffes. They are different species.
But a great dane, with theorectically compatible with a chihuahua, is practically a separate "species" under this rule. Great danes and chihuahuas have a common canine ancestor, but they have developed different traits and sizes over time. A litter of great dane puppies would kill a chihuahua mother, should that actually somehow occur.
I would actually agree that fossils like tiktaalik would be indicative that evolution does occur in such a way that allows for the possibility of two groups being identified as different "species" over time.
But we still have the same problems, this isn't new or alarming, it doesn't answer questions of first cause or necessarily mean that the complexity we see came only from natural, material causes. In terms of transitional animals, or evidence that would lend itself well to this kind of theory, you don't need a 380 million year old fossil for that...
you just need a frog.
Or any amphibian - aren't they much stronger (and fully formed) arguments for transitional species than a salmon that can prop itself up by 2 inches or so to see better?
So three "slam dunk" arguments against creation, seemingly defanged. Thanks for playing.
http://atheism.about.com/b/2011/02/08/comment-of-the-week-proving-evolution.htm
Creationism is not a position adopted simply because a person happens to lack all the information necessary to rationally justify accepting evolution. Creationism is a religious ideology adopted in spite of evidence because one's religion demands opposition to most of what defines modernity: science, reason, autonomy, etc.
This is an excellent example of the logical fallacy of the Straw Man. Basically you misrepresent a position you disagree with, then "refute" the imaginary position. It's a wonderful metaphor and in a fight, an opponent who is propped up and stuffed with straw is easy to defeat, knock down or set on fire. The reality is not so simple.
Not all people who believe in Creation are idiots, or submissive to an oppressive and backwards ideology eschewing of all things contemporary or modern. To be sure, there are some people who believe that the earth is flat, in bigfoot and UFOs and in all manner of things. The internet has made it alarmingly easy to identify and link to the lunatic fringe, but you're still talking about Straw Men here.
There are lots of people who are reasonably informed on the science of biology and evolution, who still believe God created the universe.
As an example, the head of the human genome project, is a Christian, and believes that God created the universe. One of the most prominent and effective scientists of our age led the genome project to successful completion, early and under budget. He calls DNA, the language of God and he isn't a yokel, he is an expert who knows what he is talking about and understands the implications of what he says.
http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Science-Religion/2006/08/God-Is-Not-Threatened-By-Our-Scientific-Adventures.aspx?p=3
The question isn't (from anyone with a brain, in my opinion) does evolution, in some sense, occur? Of course it does. The real question is, does the fact that it does mean that science has successfully answered questions of origin to the point where there is no rational room for faith?
That answer is clearly no and unfortunately, this is the real source of disagreement.
Atheists like Austin, hold their statement above to be a given, and refuse to acknowledge the ontological underpinnings of their own assumptions, and assume that anyone who disagrees simply isn't rational at all.
In the article, reference are made to three pieces of evidence considered to be a "slam dunk" against anyone who believes in creation. So, I'm game, let's take a look at these one by one:
First: The Lenski experiment
This is an experiment, still running at the University of Michigan, which is studying changes over time with generations of E Coli, with 50,000 generations having come and gone. It is an interesting study where they seperate an observe differences over time from organisms with a common ancestry. None of the organisms have turned into a fish or a giraffe yet, but they have shown significant changes over time and have adapted to things in their very limited and controlled environment.
The philosophical implications of this are pretty thin, given that no one that I'm aware of is saying that we can't adapt significantly over time. That some of us are white, some brown and some black seems like a pretty obvious indication that we're really adaptable in ways that can pass onto our children. That E Coli become larger and more round over time, simply isn't conclusive evidence that materialism is now the only answer. This doesn't refute anything, except the notion that organisms do not adapt at all, and even the craziest people on the creation boat don't believe this.
It's one of those things that seems like it ought to be more than it actually is, in terms of actual logical implication.
Second: Chromosome #2
This one was interesting as well, and I hadn't encountered this one before. Humans have 23 strands of chromosomes. Other primates, apes, chimps, etc... have 24. One of our strands (#2) looks really, really similar to 2 separate strands in other primates.
The theory from the scientific side is that we and other primates have a shared ancestry, because of the hugely similar sections of our DNA. The philosophical implication that our atheist article writer wants to make is that this clearly indicates that evolution as currently understood is true and therefore, we don't need any Creator for explaining little Timmy.
Just off the top of my head, there would be two other options, both compatible with Christianity.
One, God used an evolutionary process to develop life on earth. If you consider that every person you know, in all their complexity, orginated as a single cell (zygote), it isn't much of a leap to imagine that God grew a world of life and complexity in similar fashion, from an equally humble and simplistic beginning. This is Collin's position, and it is a reasonable one.
To say that this complexity (both in a person as an individual and in the world's ecosystem at large) occurred spontaneously over time, is still a huge leap... and it doesn't seem to follow that pattern in other complex systems that we observe in nature.
Two, God used similar building blocks in designing different life forms, because they worked well. To say that we share DNA with fruit flies, carrots and baboons might be a bit like saying engines in planes, trains and automobiles all utilize metal.
If you consider that there might be an intelligence at work in creation, of course there would be things used again and again, that isn't shocking at all.
The challenge on this one was to demonstrate how the scientists are wrong here. The answer to that is, that the implication of the data at hand does not make it necessary that God does not exist. Moving on.
Three: Tiktaalik
Basically, this is a fish with flipper joints, which would allow the little halibut to do a push up.
This is in answer to, "There are no transitional fossils! The missing link is still missing!"
Yeah, ok, but that's a stupid position for any creationist to take, and not many of them do. The problem with holding that there is no specie to specie "evolution" is that species are categorizations made by us and while they aren't arbitrary, they aren't perfect either.
Species is defined as a taxonomic rank that can breed and produce fertile offspring. So as a stupid example, dogs can't breed with giraffes. They are different species.
But a great dane, with theorectically compatible with a chihuahua, is practically a separate "species" under this rule. Great danes and chihuahuas have a common canine ancestor, but they have developed different traits and sizes over time. A litter of great dane puppies would kill a chihuahua mother, should that actually somehow occur.
I would actually agree that fossils like tiktaalik would be indicative that evolution does occur in such a way that allows for the possibility of two groups being identified as different "species" over time.
But we still have the same problems, this isn't new or alarming, it doesn't answer questions of first cause or necessarily mean that the complexity we see came only from natural, material causes. In terms of transitional animals, or evidence that would lend itself well to this kind of theory, you don't need a 380 million year old fossil for that...
you just need a frog.
Or any amphibian - aren't they much stronger (and fully formed) arguments for transitional species than a salmon that can prop itself up by 2 inches or so to see better?
So three "slam dunk" arguments against creation, seemingly defanged. Thanks for playing.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Can Atheists be Moral?
The short answer to this question is, "it depends on what you mean by moral and morality."
If by moral you mean, "adhering to virtue in the sense of objective good and evil" then no, they can't. They don't believe in objective good and evil, so that sense of morality is a non-starter. Atheists, in refusing any authority other than the convention of man, don't believe in objective right or wrong, or good and evil, so that definition of morality simply can not apply to someone who doesn't accept the premise.
If by morality, you mean, "following the laws of the land and practicing ethical behavior as defined by their context" then sure, atheists can obey the traffic laws and show up to work on time just like anybody else.
The problem is that the word is used in both senses, which causes confusion and people on each side of the definition argue without regard to the multiple and vastly different uses of the word.
Example:
http://atheism.about.com/b/2011/01/07/sarah-palin-secular-atheists-secular-theists-cant-be-moral.htm
Kathleen Kennedy Townsend and Austin Cline take issue with Sarah Palin's stance that, "morality itself cannot be sustained without the support of religious beliefs." But what they are disagreeing about ultimately, is the nature of good and evil and the ultimate definition of morality.
Neither of them accepts Palin's definition of morality as given by God and not simply derived by the thoughts of people and legal systems of government. My point is that if they don't accept morality as ultimately extra-natural in cause, then of course they won't be "moral" according to that definition. What they are doing is using "moral" in a different way, and saying, "look - we're moral and you're wrong to say that we aren't."
But changing the definition changes the whole nature of the argument and claim.
The behavior actually seen or observed from both perspectives can overlap, but ultimately the disagreement is in the nature of good and evil and their connection with morality, and how this is defined. Unfortunately, the standard dictionary definitions are of little help:
http://www.dictionary.net/morality
We still have the problem of what makes right "right" and what makes wrong "wrong" and who ultimately decides this. I think Dosteovsky makes a strong point in The Brothers Karamazov when he says, "If there is no immortality, then all things are permitted."
If life simply ends at the grave, then what difference does it make if you live as monster or a saint? The answer to that is "very little." Sure Stalin killed millions, but they would have died eventually anyway. Morality has had a religious underpinning for thousands of years, if you take that underpinning away, then it becomes necessary to answer the question, "why be moral at all?"
It isn't that the question can't be answered without a religious context, but it certainly becomes more problematic, in that Bob's definition of morality has no more weight than Steve's does, and they might disagree.
Austin says, "Saying that you can't be moral without being religious is no less bigoted than saying that a person can't be moral without believing in Jesus."
It isn't bigoted to disagree about the nature of good and evil. But then, Austin is really quick to pull the bigot card, without actually addressing the nuance of the actual issue at hand. Anyone who disagrees with him is a "bigot", as he regularly diplays in comment responses. Which ironically, is extremely bigoted behavior, but nevermind.
To say that someone can't be moral according to Palin's definition of moral without being religious is simply being accurate, not bigoted.
One other thing, the Austin Cline article, which is arguing for a strict separation of church and state, with no mention or influence from private life into public political life, actually dares to mention Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address. This address is etched into stone at the Lincoln Memorial, and it should be. I simply cannot believe that someone would reference or attempt to quote from this particular speech in support of not mentioning God, or anything related to God in public political discourse. It is beyond idiotic. Link to Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address and the full text of that speech is below.
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres32.html
Abraham Lincoln seems to draw a connection between theism and morality.
I think if you want to actually argue this point, you should take him on, in addition to Palin and see what happens. It's easy to criticize someone who is popular this week, and whom much of the media hates, it is slilghtly harder to criticize someone who is widely acknowledged as the best President ever.
If by moral you mean, "adhering to virtue in the sense of objective good and evil" then no, they can't. They don't believe in objective good and evil, so that sense of morality is a non-starter. Atheists, in refusing any authority other than the convention of man, don't believe in objective right or wrong, or good and evil, so that definition of morality simply can not apply to someone who doesn't accept the premise.
If by morality, you mean, "following the laws of the land and practicing ethical behavior as defined by their context" then sure, atheists can obey the traffic laws and show up to work on time just like anybody else.
The problem is that the word is used in both senses, which causes confusion and people on each side of the definition argue without regard to the multiple and vastly different uses of the word.
Example:
http://atheism.about.com/b/2011/01/07/sarah-palin-secular-atheists-secular-theists-cant-be-moral.htm
Kathleen Kennedy Townsend and Austin Cline take issue with Sarah Palin's stance that, "morality itself cannot be sustained without the support of religious beliefs." But what they are disagreeing about ultimately, is the nature of good and evil and the ultimate definition of morality.
Neither of them accepts Palin's definition of morality as given by God and not simply derived by the thoughts of people and legal systems of government. My point is that if they don't accept morality as ultimately extra-natural in cause, then of course they won't be "moral" according to that definition. What they are doing is using "moral" in a different way, and saying, "look - we're moral and you're wrong to say that we aren't."
But changing the definition changes the whole nature of the argument and claim.
The behavior actually seen or observed from both perspectives can overlap, but ultimately the disagreement is in the nature of good and evil and their connection with morality, and how this is defined. Unfortunately, the standard dictionary definitions are of little help:
http://www.dictionary.net/morality
We still have the problem of what makes right "right" and what makes wrong "wrong" and who ultimately decides this. I think Dosteovsky makes a strong point in The Brothers Karamazov when he says, "If there is no immortality, then all things are permitted."
If life simply ends at the grave, then what difference does it make if you live as monster or a saint? The answer to that is "very little." Sure Stalin killed millions, but they would have died eventually anyway. Morality has had a religious underpinning for thousands of years, if you take that underpinning away, then it becomes necessary to answer the question, "why be moral at all?"
It isn't that the question can't be answered without a religious context, but it certainly becomes more problematic, in that Bob's definition of morality has no more weight than Steve's does, and they might disagree.
Austin says, "Saying that you can't be moral without being religious is no less bigoted than saying that a person can't be moral without believing in Jesus."
It isn't bigoted to disagree about the nature of good and evil. But then, Austin is really quick to pull the bigot card, without actually addressing the nuance of the actual issue at hand. Anyone who disagrees with him is a "bigot", as he regularly diplays in comment responses. Which ironically, is extremely bigoted behavior, but nevermind.
To say that someone can't be moral according to Palin's definition of moral without being religious is simply being accurate, not bigoted.
One other thing, the Austin Cline article, which is arguing for a strict separation of church and state, with no mention or influence from private life into public political life, actually dares to mention Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address. This address is etched into stone at the Lincoln Memorial, and it should be. I simply cannot believe that someone would reference or attempt to quote from this particular speech in support of not mentioning God, or anything related to God in public political discourse. It is beyond idiotic. Link to Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address and the full text of that speech is below.
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres32.html
Abraham Lincoln seems to draw a connection between theism and morality.
I think if you want to actually argue this point, you should take him on, in addition to Palin and see what happens. It's easy to criticize someone who is popular this week, and whom much of the media hates, it is slilghtly harder to criticize someone who is widely acknowledged as the best President ever.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Austin Cline is a Liar
But at least he is consistent. He lies when it suits his agenda, actively censors dissenting comments and will even go so far as to implicitly defend child pornography and human trafficking to attack Christianity.
The title of the article in question is, "Pope Benedict XVI: Its Not Our Fault We Raped Kids"
http://atheism.about.com/b/2011/01/02/pope-benedict-xvi-its-not-our-fault-we-raped-kids.htm
Source of the actual Pope's statement is here:
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9486
I would definitely not consider myself a defender of the current Pope and I'm not Catholic. I do believe that he is misrepresented and lied about both in the press and in criticisms of his speaking and he is treated unfairly.
Remember his "anti-muslim" speech in Germany in 2006? Where he was accused of saying that Islam is a violent religion unfairly? Something didn't seem right to me, so I looked up the actual speech. I was shocked to find what he actually said.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html
He is saying the opposite and calling for a reasoned dialogue between faith and other views of the world. The religion of peace, in protest, bombed a few churches and set things on fire. Austin is doing the same thing here, except using words instead of dynamite.
This is especially pernicious, because he clearly knows better. I'll limit this to two glaring problems.
1) The implied "quote" from the Pope is inaccurate and libelous (below bold emphasis mine)
What the Pope Actually said was, "We were all the more dismayed, then, when in this year of all years and to a degree we could not have imagined, we came to know of abuse of minors committed by priests who twist the sacrament into its antithesis, and under the mantle of the sacred profoundly wound human persons in their childhood, damaging them for a whole lifetime."
And, "Her garment is torn – by the sins of priests. The way she saw and expressed it is the way we have experienced it this year. We must accept this humiliation as an exhortation to truth and a call to renewal. Only the truth saves. We must ask ourselves what we can do to repair as much as possible the injustice that has occurred. We must ask ourselves what was wrong in our proclamation, in our whole way of living the Christian life, to allow such a thing to happen. We must discover a new resoluteness in faith and in doing good. We must be capable of doing penance. We must be determined to make every possible effort in priestly formation to prevent anything of the kind from happening again. This is also the moment to offer heartfelt thanks to all those who work to help victims and to restore their trust in the Church, their capacity to believe her message. In my meetings with victims of this sin, I have also always found people who, with great dedication, stand alongside those who suffer and have been damaged. This is also the occasion to thank the many good priests who act as channels of the Lord’s goodness in humility and fidelity and, amid the devastations, bear witness to the unforfeited beauty of the priesthood."
And finally, "We are well aware of the particular gravity of this sin committed by priests and of our corresponding responsibility."
He isn't making excuses and his statements are clear in acknowledgment and responsibility for deplorable acts. This doesn't undo the actions taken against children, but to say the Pope is claiming that it wasn't done or that it "wasn't their fault" is like saying the current German government is denying the Holocaust.
The problem with a claim like Austin's, is that it is completely false. He is lying about what the Pope is saying, there just isn't any other way to say it.
2) Austin misquotes the Pope, then tries to attack something he didn't ever actually say.
Pope's statement, "There is a market in child pornography that seems in some way to be considered more and more normal by society.
The psychological destruction of children, in which human persons are reduced to articles of merchandise, is a terrifying sign of the times. From Bishops of developing countries I hear again and again how sexual tourism threatens an entire generation and damages its freedom and its human dignity."
Austin's response, "Well, I suppose that in order to be fair I should allow for one narrow sense in which Benedict might have something approaching a point: it does seem to be treated as more and more normal by society for children to be sexualized to a growing degree. We see sexualized clothing and attitudes marketed to younger and younger kids -- especially younger and younger girls. That isn't the same as "child pornography," though, and I don't think it would be legitimate to treat that as a valid intended meaning behind his words."
Um, I don't think we're talking about Target and junior high girls showing their midriff, or the words "hot stuff" across the bottom of sweatpants, intended for pre-teen girls. I think the Pope is talking about internet child pornography, which is more rampant than it has ever been, sexual tourism, human trafficking and the abuse of underage females for a fee.
http://www.justice.gov/criminal/ceos/sextour.html
This is a devestatingly serious issue in the world today, and if you look at the numbers, much more prolific than the handful of priests who have been abusive. This isn't seeking to dismiss or deflect from the inappropriate and criminal behavior of priests.
But we're not talking about America, we're not talking about the mall and Calvin Klein ads. We're talking about the (in many cases) forced rape of children happening 30-100 times a week per child for money.
I wonder why Austin is deflecting the actual comment away from the real issue at hand. Is he really defending the practices of sexual tourism as a red herring and not really all that bad? Is this another case of Christianity with its ridiculous sexual standards of conduct trying to interfere with the freedom of free thinking people?
Or is he just using a very emotionally charged topic, to take an unfair and cheap shots at a religious leader for his own agenda and ends?
He can do that if he wants to... but don't call it reasonable, logical, or correct in any forum.
I would think that human sex trafficking would be one thing that even a New Atheist like Cline would agree is bad. And if in agreement that a serious human rights issue is bad and should be stopped, why would he try to deflect or diminish the attention drawn to this, even by someone he ultimately disagrees with?
Does he hate theism and the Pope so much, that he is willing to implicitly support human trafficking for the sake of a cheap shot? That's disturbing, especially for someone who claims to value skepticism and clear thinking as a force for good in the world.
When propaganda for your cause becomes more important than saying, "child pornography and forced sexual tourism is wrong" then you're out to lunch.
The title of the article in question is, "Pope Benedict XVI: Its Not Our Fault We Raped Kids"
http://atheism.about.com/b/2011/01/02/pope-benedict-xvi-its-not-our-fault-we-raped-kids.htm
Source of the actual Pope's statement is here:
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9486
I would definitely not consider myself a defender of the current Pope and I'm not Catholic. I do believe that he is misrepresented and lied about both in the press and in criticisms of his speaking and he is treated unfairly.
Remember his "anti-muslim" speech in Germany in 2006? Where he was accused of saying that Islam is a violent religion unfairly? Something didn't seem right to me, so I looked up the actual speech. I was shocked to find what he actually said.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html
He is saying the opposite and calling for a reasoned dialogue between faith and other views of the world. The religion of peace, in protest, bombed a few churches and set things on fire. Austin is doing the same thing here, except using words instead of dynamite.
This is especially pernicious, because he clearly knows better. I'll limit this to two glaring problems.
1) The implied "quote" from the Pope is inaccurate and libelous (below bold emphasis mine)
What the Pope Actually said was, "We were all the more dismayed, then, when in this year of all years and to a degree we could not have imagined, we came to know of abuse of minors committed by priests who twist the sacrament into its antithesis, and under the mantle of the sacred profoundly wound human persons in their childhood, damaging them for a whole lifetime."
And, "Her garment is torn – by the sins of priests. The way she saw and expressed it is the way we have experienced it this year. We must accept this humiliation as an exhortation to truth and a call to renewal. Only the truth saves. We must ask ourselves what we can do to repair as much as possible the injustice that has occurred. We must ask ourselves what was wrong in our proclamation, in our whole way of living the Christian life, to allow such a thing to happen. We must discover a new resoluteness in faith and in doing good. We must be capable of doing penance. We must be determined to make every possible effort in priestly formation to prevent anything of the kind from happening again. This is also the moment to offer heartfelt thanks to all those who work to help victims and to restore their trust in the Church, their capacity to believe her message. In my meetings with victims of this sin, I have also always found people who, with great dedication, stand alongside those who suffer and have been damaged. This is also the occasion to thank the many good priests who act as channels of the Lord’s goodness in humility and fidelity and, amid the devastations, bear witness to the unforfeited beauty of the priesthood."
And finally, "We are well aware of the particular gravity of this sin committed by priests and of our corresponding responsibility."
He isn't making excuses and his statements are clear in acknowledgment and responsibility for deplorable acts. This doesn't undo the actions taken against children, but to say the Pope is claiming that it wasn't done or that it "wasn't their fault" is like saying the current German government is denying the Holocaust.
The problem with a claim like Austin's, is that it is completely false. He is lying about what the Pope is saying, there just isn't any other way to say it.
2) Austin misquotes the Pope, then tries to attack something he didn't ever actually say.
Pope's statement, "There is a market in child pornography that seems in some way to be considered more and more normal by society.
The psychological destruction of children, in which human persons are reduced to articles of merchandise, is a terrifying sign of the times. From Bishops of developing countries I hear again and again how sexual tourism threatens an entire generation and damages its freedom and its human dignity."
Austin's response, "Well, I suppose that in order to be fair I should allow for one narrow sense in which Benedict might have something approaching a point: it does seem to be treated as more and more normal by society for children to be sexualized to a growing degree. We see sexualized clothing and attitudes marketed to younger and younger kids -- especially younger and younger girls. That isn't the same as "child pornography," though, and I don't think it would be legitimate to treat that as a valid intended meaning behind his words."
Um, I don't think we're talking about Target and junior high girls showing their midriff, or the words "hot stuff" across the bottom of sweatpants, intended for pre-teen girls. I think the Pope is talking about internet child pornography, which is more rampant than it has ever been, sexual tourism, human trafficking and the abuse of underage females for a fee.
http://www.justice.gov/criminal/ceos/sextour.html
This is a devestatingly serious issue in the world today, and if you look at the numbers, much more prolific than the handful of priests who have been abusive. This isn't seeking to dismiss or deflect from the inappropriate and criminal behavior of priests.
But we're not talking about America, we're not talking about the mall and Calvin Klein ads. We're talking about the (in many cases) forced rape of children happening 30-100 times a week per child for money.
I wonder why Austin is deflecting the actual comment away from the real issue at hand. Is he really defending the practices of sexual tourism as a red herring and not really all that bad? Is this another case of Christianity with its ridiculous sexual standards of conduct trying to interfere with the freedom of free thinking people?
Or is he just using a very emotionally charged topic, to take an unfair and cheap shots at a religious leader for his own agenda and ends?
He can do that if he wants to... but don't call it reasonable, logical, or correct in any forum.
I would think that human sex trafficking would be one thing that even a New Atheist like Cline would agree is bad. And if in agreement that a serious human rights issue is bad and should be stopped, why would he try to deflect or diminish the attention drawn to this, even by someone he ultimately disagrees with?
Does he hate theism and the Pope so much, that he is willing to implicitly support human trafficking for the sake of a cheap shot? That's disturbing, especially for someone who claims to value skepticism and clear thinking as a force for good in the world.
When propaganda for your cause becomes more important than saying, "child pornography and forced sexual tourism is wrong" then you're out to lunch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)