Excuse Me, Sir - Your Straw Man is Showing...

A partial response to "The Anxiety of the Atheists."

Or: "An argument against me following random Google web-bits."

One of the surest ways to bring a certain type of dinner party to a halt is to speak piously about God. Earnest reference to sinners, apostates or blasphemers, or to the promise of salvation offered in evangelical churches, is likely to produce the same effect.

Errr... Yes. Those who "speak piously about God" or make "earnest reference to sinners, etc." at a dinner party are generally (at best) crashing bores or (at worst) insulting their guests, hosts, or fellow dinner guests. Because if you're speaking of a deep personal conviction, it is just that - personal - and will necessarily exclude anyone who is not, well, you (and dinner party conversation is, when last I checked, intended to be inclusive), and if you're hoping to exalt your own faith above others' you are being appallingly rude by indicating that your fellow diners are not of the elect and should either convert or be damned to eternal hellfire.*

Among the cosmopolites who live in secular enclaves, religion is automatically associated with darkness, superstition, irrationality and an antique or pre- modern cast of mind. It has long been assumed that religion is opposed to science, reason and human progress; and the death of gods is simply taken for granted as a deeply ingrained Darwinian article of faith.

Okay, firstly: where the hell are these mythical "secular enclaves"? Even the Sodom of NYC is thick with places of worship.

Secondly: I don't know what sort of straw men he's been smoking, but has he perhaps heard of the many learned scientists during the great ID debates of just a few years ago who lamented the false notion that science and a sense of religious wonder could not coexist in the same person? That perhaps religion and science are two different and disparate disciplines and the idea of science as "religion" is about as meaningful as a deep and abiding conviction that the Holy Books of Jane Austen should replace all false gods in Jane's sight, amen?**

Why, then, are the enlightened so conspicuously up in arms these days, reiterating every possible argument against the existence of God? Why are they indulging in books - Daniel Dennett's "Breaking the Spell," Sam Harris' "Letter to a Christian Nation," and Richard Dawkins's "God Delusion" - in which authors lampoon religion under the banner of a crusading atheism?

Up in arms? I haven't noticed a secular militia camping out on my doorstep lately. So atheists are writing books about atheism? Is that the sin? Or is it that they dare address the notion of atheism to America? And "indulging" in books? Oh, my - what condescension. What did these authors do to piss this guy off (aside from "indulging" in books)? It's as if they dared to bring a certain type of dinner party in the Christian Heartland to a halt by expressing their earnest belief in the absence of a deity...

It was here that the author was too bored by this and too disgusted by the generally devolved state of the NYT Editorial page from whence this piece of dreck first came, and went off to knit something, muttering something barely distinguishable about "preaching" and "choirs" and "[expletive deleted] idiots."

* We shan't even get into the notion of actively using one's host's dinner table (or even one's own) as a necessary adjunct to create a captive audience for one's prosletyzing, the better to convert the natives. The notion is just too horrifying.

** A church that I am, in fact, a high priestess of. Don't piss me off. Her complete works make for effective smiting.

Posted: Monday - November 27, 2006 at 06:43 PM | |