(This is a guest post by Trina Hoaks. Trina is the Atheist Examiner at Examiner.com.)
…
In her article, Darwin shouldn’t be hijacked by New Atheists — he is an ethical inspiration, Madeleine Bunting accuses atheists of using Darwin as their poster boy, so to speak. With this in mind, it is not so hard to understand why she has such a bad reputation in certain circles. Her article, if nothing else, can be seen as controversial, as the original article has generated approximately 600 comments since it was posted yesterday. Add to that another 100+ comments to the same article on Richard Dawkins‘ site and it is obvious that people are outraged.
It is funny how she, who accused atheists of kidnapping Darwin and his work, used the upcoming 2009 dual Darwin anniversary as an excuse to point her condemning finger at atheists.
Pot, kettle — kettle, pot?
In her article, she pretends to know what Darwin’s reaction to atheists embracing his work would be. She said that “what would have baffled Darwin is his recruitment as standard bearer for atheism in the 21st century.”
I suppose now we can add the title “Psychic” to her professional repertoire.
She went on to say:
Yet bizarrely, the whole 19th-century collapse of faith is now pinned on Darwin. While he was poring over his pigeons, biblical scholars were hard at work radically revising the historical understanding of the Bible and arguably doing as much as he ever did to undermine the possibility of a literal reading of scripture. The work of the Victorian geologist Charles Lyell debunked the idea of seven days of creation in Genesis long before Darwin.
Does anyone else sense Bunting’s downplay of the significance of Darwin’s contribution to the understanding of life in her paragraph? Perhaps it was just poor wording choice on her part or faulty inference on my part. Speaking of “poor wording choice,” one can only hope that that is the reason she makes it seem that she thinks that Darwin was intentionally working to undermine the Bible. That is one of the greatest false contentions of religious anti-evolutionists — that scientists do their science to debunk religion.
When will these people realize not everything is about them? As I said in my own book, “[i]t is the misguided person who does not comprehend that when scientific evidence challenges religion it is, by and large, purely incidental.”
Bunting called out a couple of atheists who will be participating in celebratory events honoring Darwin in a less-than-favorable way. She said:
The fear is that the anniversary will be hijacked by the New Atheism as the perfect battleground for another round of jousting over the absurdity of belief (a position that Darwin pointedly never took up). Many of the prominent voices in the New Atheism are lined up to reassert that it is simply impossible to believe in God and accept Darwin’s theory of evolution; Richard Dawkins and the US philosopher Daniel Dennett are among those due to appear in Darwin200 events. It’s a position that infuriates many scientists, not to mention philosophers and theologians.
Dawkins wasted no time in posting a comment to Bunting’s article, included here, unedited, in its entirety.
A telling litmus test of an ignoramus on the subject of Darwin is their rendering of the title of his great book. The [diagnostic] solecism — remarkably common — is to stick a ‘the’ before ’species’. Sure enough, Madeleine Bunting falls right into it, exactly as you would expect. The correct title, of course, is On the Origin of Species.
It is true that Darwin declined to call himself an atheist. But his motive, clearly expressed to the atheist intellectual Edward Aveling (incidentally the common-law husband of Karl Marx’s daughter) was that Darwin didn’t want to upset people. Atheism, in Darwin’s view, was all well and good for the intelligentsia, but ordinary people were not yet “ripe” for atheism. So he called himself an agnostic, largely for diplomatic reasons..
In any case, what Darwin chose to call himself, as a pillar of his local parish in the nineteenth century, is of less interest than the cogency of the arguments themselves. Before Darwin came along, it was pretty difficult to be an atheist, at least to be an atheist free of nagging doubts. Darwin triumphantly made it EASY to be an intellectually fulfilled and satisfied atheist. That doesn’t mean that understanding Darwin drives you inevitably to atheism. But it certainly constitutes a giant step in that direction.
Richard Dawkins
So, what say you?
Are atheists “shoplifting the pootie” from Darwin? (Sorry for the Jerry McGuire reference. I couldn’t help myself.)
Posted in Dating, General at 8:00 am by Hemant Mehta
Interfaith dating is never easy — it’s certainly tough when an atheist dates a Christian. But a few couples have found ways to make it work.
Atheist reader Steve is hoping he can make it work with his Christian partner. He writes this in an email:
I am a 36-year-old male who has been an atheist for six years. I am in love with a 37-year-old female Christian. We have talked many times of marriage and have just recently moved in together. This marriage would be the 2nd for both of us. Her family is what I would call extreme right wing… very anti-gay anything, very opposed to us living together, pray in restaurants, etc. To make matters worse, her brother is a preacher.
They don’t know of my belief (or lack thereof) and I’m sure it would not go over well. They want us to be married by her brother (I haven’t even proposed but plan to over the holidays). We do love and care for each other very much and she assures me that it will all be fine, but I have my doubts. I won’t give in on the religious wedding and have suggested going to Vegas or Hawaii and then returning home to have a reception with our families. This entire situation has become a huge source of stress for me and, although she doesn’t say it, I believe its troubling her, too.
I honestly don’t know where to proceed from here.
Part of me thinks she and I should make her parents aware of my position on religion (she’s scared to death of that) and tell them to like it or not — that’s just the way things are — and then proceed to handle our future with or without them. But she is close to her family and I would hate to be the one to divide them. Anyway, I think she would always resent me for that. My father thinks that I should just go along with whatever she and her family want to do because once it’s over it really doesn’t matter. He may have a point, but in the last year I have become very “militant” about my atheism making it known to anyone and everyone (except her parents) and almost daring anyone to say anything to me about it, so I don’t feel like I should have to compromise my position to have some sort of “hokey” ceremony.
What do you and you readers think we should do?
I also would like to ask other atheists out there: How do you make a relationship/marriage work when the core beliefs are so different?
To this point, my girlfriend and I just never discuss religion, but it bleeds over into so many other areas like politics and holidays. Anytime we have broached the subject, two people who never argue get in a massive fight. She is the best companion I have ever had and I love her dearly, but I can’t seem to get over the fact that I think her beliefs make her delusional. Harsh, but true.
I think it’s possible to make the relationship work despite the differences. How do you do this?
You need to respect the other person even if you don’t respect the other’s beliefs. Talk about religion. Argue about religion. But ultimately, you need to find a way to live with those differences. If you can’t, then maybe marriage shouldn’t be in the picture.
Figure out if kids are going to be a part of this relationship. If you plan on having them, how you plan to raise them (with a religion? Without? With a mixture?) will be a point of contention that needs to be worked out beforehand.
The families will always be there whether they like you or not. Ideally, they’ll find a way to make it work, but they probably won’t. After all, they think you’re going to Hell and dragging their daughter with you. You need your girlfriend to stand up for you. And you need to constantly show them that you’re a kind, decent guy who wants the best for their daughter. Whether they think any differently of you, I don’t know. But if they don’t, they don’t need to play a major role in your life.
As for the wedding ceremony, why not create your own, a mix of her culture and your beliefs? Would your girlfriend be ok with that? If she’s planning it, she can do it with your non-theism in mind and everyone else would have to go along with it. Easier said than done, I know, but if her family ends up planning your wedding with both of you not taken into consideration, then you might need to go elsewhere and just get eloped.
Does her family need to know of your beliefs? Perhaps, if you want a non-Christian wedding. Unless you can offer them a better explanation of why you don’t want something traditional. If you can get beyond the wedding, maybe they don’t need to know at all.
For almost two centuries American Christianity, including BJU in its early stages, was characterized by the segregationist ethos of American culture. Consequently, for far too long, we allowed institutional policies regarding race to be shaped more directly by that ethos than by the principles and precepts of the Scriptures. We conformed to the culture rather than provide a clear Christian counterpoint to it.
In so doing, we failed to accurately represent the Lord and to fulfill the commandment to love others as ourselves. For these failures we are profoundly sorry. Though no known antagonism toward minorities or expressions of racism on a personal level have ever been tolerated on our campus, we allowed institutional policies to remain in place that were racially hurtful.
On national television in March 2000, Bob Jones III, who was the university’s president until 2005, stated that BJU was wrong in not admitting African-American students before 1971, which sadly was a common practice of both public and private universities in the years prior to that time. On the same program, he announced the lifting of the University’s policy against interracial dating.
It’s nice that they’re apologizing. Too bad it’s decades too late for it to be truly meaningful.
By the way, hold on to this apology script.
It’s the same one Christians will be using in the future when they realize that they are acting the same way towards gay people today as they were toward black people decades ago.
You could practically rewrite the whole thing:
For almost two centuries American Christianity, including BJU in its early stages, was characterized by the discriminatory ethos of American culture. Consequently, for far too long, we allowed institutional policies regarding sexual identity to be shaped more directly by that ethos than by the principles and precepts of the Scriptures. We conformed to the culture rather than provide a clear Christian counterpoint to it.
In so doing, we failed to accurately represent the Lord and to fulfill the commandment to love others as ourselves. For these failures we are profoundly sorry. Though no known antagonism toward minorities or expressions of homophobia on a personal level have ever been tolerated on our campus, we allowed institutional policies to remain in place that were personally hurtful…
Plenty of other groups, atheists included, were against racism long before conservative Christians came around to it.
And plenty of groups today, liberal Christians included, are against the homophobia seen in churches across the country. The churches will come around to that view as well within a couple generations. The faster they can drop their ignorance, the longer they’ll survive. If they don’t, they’ll begin to lose members even faster than they are now.
Where is the anti-gay rhetoric coming from? Some Christians say homophobia is Bible-based. Other try to give their reasoning without appealing to the Bible. Personally, when they try to justify their bigotry this way, it sounds even more ignorant.
Either way, younger Christians are much more in favor of equality for all than their parents and grandparents. That’s good for everyone.
And, by the way, if you ever wanted short and snappy responses to common anti-gay-rights talking points, here you go.
From: Jan
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 5:34 PM
To: ncwarren@eharmony.com [Dr. Neil Clark Warren, founder, eHarmony.com]
Subject: unbelievable
Dear Mr. Warren:
I was absolutely shocked that you would cave into the homosexual agenda, by offering date-matching for homosexuals on your “Christian” dating website. They have their own dating websites which I understand to be extremely X-rated.
I have several single and widowed friends who use your website. I will be sending an e-mail to them about your caving into EVIL and that they should not use your website — ever again.
Extremely disappointed,
Jan
Crystal Lake, IL
She may be confusing X-Rated with purely hookup sites. And she doesn’t seem to know gay people will get a site with a different domain name.
That said, I have sudden urge to want to use eHarmony now…
At the risk of using a strong word, this must be one of those “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” sort of things.
The settlement is the result of a complaint New Jersey resident Eric McKinley filed against the online matchmaker in 2005. McKinley, 46, said he was shocked when he tried to sign up for the dating site but couldn’t get past the first screen because there was no option for men seeking men.
“It’s very frustrating and it’s very humiliating to think that other people can do it and I can’t,” he said. “And the only reason I can’t is because I’m a gay man. That’s very hurtful.”
Neither the company nor its founder, Neil Clark Warren, acknowledged any liability. Under the settlement, eHarmony will pay New Jersey state division $50,000 to cover administrative costs and will pay McKinley $5,000.
…
Pasadena, Calif.-based eHarmony said it plans to launch its new service, called Compatible Partners, on March 31.
Of course, the more popular and better-known eHarmony site will have nothing to do with those evil gays.
… But Warren says eHarmony promotes heterosexual marriage, about which he has done extensive research. He says he does not know enough about gay and lesbian relationships to do same-sex matching.
It “calls for some very careful thinking. Very careful research.” He adds that same-sex marriage is illegal in most states. “We don’t really want to participate in something that’s illegal.”
I didn’t realize eHarmony gave away marriage licenses.
Seems like the smarter option is to just say no to the new site (and eHarmony in general) and pay for services at a place that doesn’t practice discrimination.
… I hate the turn-key “atheist” dating sites that I find in searches for “atheist personals,” ugly, boring automated spin-offs of much larger dating networks. Sexed-Up-Atheists.com, which went live in October 2008, is a labour of love. A finger up to organised religion, it’s a 100% FREE personals service for every atheist, pantheist, skeptic, agnostic, pagan, bright, humanist and non-religious free thinker who aspires to find a like-minded friend, social network or lover to call their own. I’ve even coined a new collective noun for our community: A Denial of Atheists.
Niche atheist dating sites don’t have a very good track record — there are never enough members to make a search worthwhile — but maybe this one will be different.
I imagine most atheists use sites like Match.com or OKCupid or Craigslist and specifically seek out non-religious people. It’s obviously easier to find a match — even an atheist one — when the pool is larger.
Posted in Dating, General at 8:34 pm by Hemant Mehta
Here’s the first line of a recent news story:
The 40 Days for Life campaign, a period of fasting and prayer to save babies from abortion, is in its final two weeks.
If that was all they were doing, I wouldn’t care, because both of those things are ineffective ways to reach their goal.
But they’re also harassing and intimidating women who visit health clinics — protesting and proselytizing — and that’s interfering with the womens’ choice. That’s a problem.
They say these are peaceful protests. They’re lying.
And Planned Parenthood spokeswoman Aurora Jewell had a wonderful line about what Planned Parenthood does on a regular basis:
“We’re doing more in one day to prevent unintended pregnancies and the need for abortion than these people are doing in 40 days,” Jewell said.
Anyway, I’m posting this for a completely different reason:
Various events are being held outside abortion facilities throughout the country, and David Bereit is spearheading the campaign. “We have a total of 268 children who have been spared from abortion, 268 women who have been spared from a life of regret,” he comments. “We have had tens of thousands of people on the streets participating in peaceful vigils in front of abortion facilities in 179 cities across 47 states.”
Where on earth are they getting that number from?
I can’t find justification for it anywhere on their website.
I don’t even want to say they’re making it up. But is it based on how many women they scared off at the abortion clinics? On the women who have told them they said no to having an abortion after an encounter with the group?
Posted in Dating, General at 7:00 am by Hemant Mehta
And they said being an atheist has no perks…
I recently received an offer from a Christian couple (husband and wife) in their 30s who would like me to spend the summer with them:
We would like you to consider, at no cost to you, spending the summer with us. There are no strings attached (with the exception of the open mind you agreed to in you auction) and, should you decide, you may leave at any time. If you have stayed, at the end of the summer, we will give you $10,000.
Maybe that sounds like a scam. But they actually seem sincere about this:
As far as what you would do… We just want you to get to know our family and what our lives are really like. Spend time with us, fellowship with us, see us in many different situations. For example, since moving here 3 years ago, we have had a 4th of July party for the church, neighborhood and work. So far, we have had great attendence (~70). It is important to us to do that because it brings together our friends from church and the neighborhood, including: Muslims, Jews, agnostics, other Christian denominations, other cultures and ideals. People have seemed to really enjoy themselves. We want you to experience our lives through things such as that. Your schedule is your own; this is a three month opportunity to find Truth.
We are open to any questions or comments that you have. We don’t claim to have all the answers, either. We do think that we could shed some light on several of the points you brought up in your book. Think of it as an “immersion” experience. One of the things that struck us when reading your book, is that it seems as if you got small glimpses (think speed-dating) of many different things, mostly of the “religion” of Christianity. We want you to see people with a realrelationship with Jesus Christ (think exclusively dating). Our church is small, but the people there are sincere, a rare quality inside or outside the religous world. Their flaws, for that matter, our flaws, will surely be evident to you, but I believe that you will be able to see true Christianity.
We are not planning on telling people why you are here, so you can see them as they really are. You, of course, can tell them if you wish.
I don’t know if this is possible from my end (*so* close to finishing grad school and my summer class would be my last one), so it could all be moot. I suppose things could always be rearranged, though…
In any case, we’ve exchanged a few emails and they seem to be really interested in this.
I’m not sure if it would accomplish anything. I have spent far more time with True ChristiansTM than I have inside a church — before and after the writing of the book. And that hasn’t changed my atheism in the least. I don’t think that being with a different group of True ChristiansTM will change that.
Though, this experiment does sound like something I’d do…
I’m not ready to say yes anytime soon. (Lots of things would have to be worked out.)
A few weeks ago, I had a chance to catch a screening of a new documentary, American Teen, a movie being called a “modern day Breakfast Club.”
I loved the movie.
Maybe it has something to do with having just taught at a high school similar to the one in the film, but I also think it’s easy to relate to and shows a lot of truths about high school life you don’t see in scripted films. (The documentary was filmed a few years ago at Warsaw Community High School in Indiana.)
At the theater I saw it at, my friend and I were surrounded by a couple hundred new college students going through a freshmen orientation. They were screaming at the screen when the “popular” girl did something bitchy. They were going “Aww!” when the “geek” asked out a girl (and failed miserably). They were in tears when one student achieved a major goal toward the end of the film. The reactions were almost as entertaining as the movie itself. Everyone was emotionally invested in the students’ lives. You felt like you knew the kids personally.
One of the students prominently featured in the movie was Hannah Bailey, the “rebel.”
Hannah Bailey is smart and beautiful, but a misfit in her high school. She is a liberal atheist living in a traditional, Christian, conservative town and dreams of moving to California after graduation.
Truth be told, Hannah’s agnostic, not atheist. But religion doesn’t play a major role in the film.
Because they don’t care about them. And at my high school, nobody cared about politics. And religion… I shouldn’t say nobody cared about religion, because that’s not true. Politics, they definitely don’t care about. Religion, I was open to being a problem — or, if a conflict came up that was important. There were certainly relationships where a certain kid might be much more religious and dating a Catholic, and that might be a problem for their parents. But that just didn’t come up in the people I was filming. The only one who came from a pretty religious background was Mitch, the blonde guy. But it didn’t really enter into his story. Politics never entered into it, because they just didn’t care. And it doesn’t affect their world.
Hannah’s story was possibly the most compelling for me, and she was gracious enough to answer some questions pertaining to her (lack of) faith and the film:
Hemant Mehta: It’s hard enough reliving tough high school moments in one’s memory… What was it like watching breakups and other difficult moments from your senior year on film?
Hannah Bailey: Re-living high school’s not too tough. I’ve moved on. I will never talk to most of those kids again, so it doesn’t matter much. I’m friends with Joel [the "perfect boyfriend" who broke up with her]. I’ve made peace with the experience. It’s alright.
HM: What did you learn about yourself and your friends when watching the movie that you didn’t know (or couldn’t know) when you were in high school? What secrets came to light only when you saw the final product?
HB: People ask me what I learned about myself. Honestly, I didn’t learn much from the movie. I learned a lot from moving to California, confronting my problems, reflecting — you know, just generally living. By the time I saw the movie (2 years after I graduated), I had figured most of that high school stuff out already. I guess one thing I am starting to realize now is that my best friend, Clarke [seen in the film], is definitely the most incredible person on this planet. But, I think I kinda already knew that.
HM: Did any scenes make you wince? Were any of them surprisingly pleasant to watch?
HB: It’s a little hard to see myself cry again and again, but what girl doesn’t cry after a heart-crushing breakup. Most, I assume. It’s difficult to watch my mom and hear the audience’s reaction when she says “You’re not special.” I wish people would realize that she simply misspoke. She meant that I shouldn’t deserve special treatment, that I shouldn’t think of myself as above anyone else. She was right.
The Mitch and me montage was surprisingly cute. The dragon outfit scene is the best.
HM: How did your agnosticism affect how people perceived you in your school? In your community? Were you “out” about being non-religious?
HB: I don’t really talk openly about religion much. I figure it’s good to let people do what they want to do. The only time I really argue is when religion creates any kind of prejudice tendencies or just plain ignorance. I will speak up about that because, in my opinion, there is no right or wrong when it comes to religion, but when it comes to any kind of prejudice because of religion, there is. As I say in the film, Warsaw is predominantly Christian, which is true. It used to bother me more when I was younger, because I felt so different I guess, but I trained myself to be more accepting as I entered high school and beyond. A lot of my best friends are religious. I have no problem with that because they’re totally cool about it.
HM: Where did that agnosticism stem from? It seemed like your family was religious in some way in the movie…
HB: My extended family is religious, yes, but my immediate family is much more lax about it. My mom was raised as a strict Catholic, so she sort of rebelled against that as she grew up. She’s still Christian, but she doesn’t feel the need to go to church or make a big to do about it. My dad is more like me. Much more open-minded about the whole subject. I was very spiritual as a kid, but I always questioned how so many major religions can be “the one.” It never made sense. I decided when I was very young that I wasn’t going to denounce any one religion, but I wasn’t going to practice one specifically either. Who am I to say what’s right or wrong?
HM: When you and the other students featured in the film saw the movie for the first time, what were your reactions?
HB: The other “teens” and I (along with Nanette the director, and Jordan [Roberts] the producer) watched the movie together the night before the Sundance premiere. It was very emotional. We all cried a bit, I think. Mostly laughs though. We’re all so far removed from that drama that’s it’s laughable now.
We took the whole thing a lot lot lighter than the audience normally does.
HM: High school reunion: Looking forward to it?
HB: I’ll go to a high school reunion. I’m looking forward to drinking and dancing with my friends. I’m looking forward to finding out what became of everyone. It should be fun.
HM: What sorts of movies do you plan on making once you finish film school?
HB: Right now, I’m looking to write comedy, comedy-horror, and drama. Those are my specialties. I would edit anything. I don’t have plans to direct right now, but you never know. Ask me again in 10 years.
If this movie is showing anywhere in your area, go see it. Totally worth the price of admission.
