On trial: ‘The Case for Christ,’ part 3b

This is the continuation of a series on “The Case for Christ.” If you missed them, here are the other parts in the series: Part 1Part 2Part 3a.

***

Next we move to the substantive “tests” to which Strobel subjects the gospel accounts. The first he calls the “intention” test to try to surmise whether the gospel writers actually intended to present an accurate account of the events. Blomberg mentions the passage in Luke in which the writer says his purpose was to “write an orderly account” of what he had heard from people who were eyewitnesses to the events portrayed in the book. Luke claims he has “carefully” investigated the stories.

The Case for Christ

Strobel then questions why Matthew and Mark don’t contain similar declarations. Blomberg makes this rather large assumption based on no evidence whatsoever:

They are close to Luke in terms if genre, and it seems reasonable that Luke’s historical intent would closely mirror theirs.

Blomberg has no idea what Matthew and Mark’s “historical intent” was; he just takes it, as it were, on faith that Matthew and Mark are not propagandists pushing a certain agenda about the claims of Christ. Strobel also asks about the gospel of John, to which Blomberg points out verse 20:31. The passage states that John was writing “that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”

So, here is a clear declaration that John is writing with the purpose of advocating the authenticity of Christ as divine, or in other words, he has a clear motive and is far from unbiased. Strobel responded: “That sounds more like a theological statement than a historical one.” Blomberg concedes that point but notes that if a person is going to believe in Christ, the “theology has to flow from accurate history:”

… Consider the way the gospels are written — in a sober and responsible fashion, with accurate incidental details, with obvious care and exactitude. You don’t find the outlandish flourishes and blatant mythologies that you see in a lot of other ancient writings.”

If by “sober” he means drab, I’ll concede that point. Again, Blomberg would help his case by presenting some of the “incidental details” that apologists like to claim give the Bible validity. Of course, just the mere presence of incidental details in a text does not prove anything about the historicity of the stories themselves. Thomas Hardy’s novels include many “incidental” and real elements of what pastoral English life was like in the 19th century, but the characters and the plots were not real. Hell, even comic books and many video games often contain lots of authentic details about places like New York, Los Angeles or the Middle East. Just because a novel or other work has incidental details does not make its basic story true as far as history is considered.

As for his claim that readers don’t find “outlandish flourishes and blatant mythologies” in the gospels, I have to ask: are we reading the same books? Here I’ll argue not only with Blomberg’s claim but with this writer, who states outright that

… there are no “mythological elements.” Those who talk about mythological elements are clearly ignorant not only of the gospels themselves, but of what mythology actually consists of. What they usually mean by ‘mythological elements’ is the supernatural.

Well, no. That is not what is meant, and the writer seems to be putting words in the mouths of critics. What is meant by mythological is just that: elements in the New Testament accounts (not to mention the Old Testament) that appear eerily similar to other myths that were circulated throughout antiquity, namely and most prominently, redemption mythology, which forms the entire foundation of the biblical narrative.

Rudolf Bultmann in “The Mythological Element in the Message of the New Testament and the Problem of its Re-interpretation Part I” outlines this framework:

The mythology of the New Testament is in essence that of Jewish apocalyptic and the Gnostic redemption myths. A common feature of them both is their basic dualism, according to which the present world and its human inhabitants are under the control of demonic, satanic powers, and stand in need of redemption. Man cannot achieve this redemption by his own efforts; it must come as a gift through a divine intervention. Both types of mythology speak of such an intervention: Jewish apocalyptic of an imminent world crisis in which this present aeon will be brought to an end and the new aeon ushered in by the coming of the Messiah, and Gnosticism of a Son of God sent down from the realm of light, entering into this world in the guise of a man, and by his fate and teaching delivering the elect and opening up the way for their return to their heavenly home.

Indeed, elements of Gnosticism itself pre-date Christianity, and one could make the case that the basic premise of Gnosticism, attaining individual salvation of the soul from the carnal world through knowledge — replacing esoteric or intuitive knowledge with the knowledge of Christ — was borrowed by Christianity and adopted with its own twist centered on the divinity and saving power of Christ.

Of course, one needs only take a short trek through the “Dying  god” entry on Wikipedia to research and identify the numerous life-death-rebirth myths that have inundated antiquity, Osiris in Egypt being one of the earliest and clearest examples to draw parallels. So much for the absence of “blatant mythologies.” As for the “outlandish flourishes” in the gospels, I won’t even get into the possessed pig, Christ’s temptation in the desert or the earthquake that supposed happened, depending on which account you read, when Christ died (with dead people springing up from the ground to boot) and again when an angel appeared at Christ’s tomb, which are “incidental details” that no historian outside of the Bible thought worthy to mention.

***

I am attempting to make this series more digestible by breaking it up into smaller parts. Since this section only covered one page of the book (p. 40), this may shape up to be a long series indeed (only 230 pages to go!). I’m sure there will be opportunities to move more quickly at the expense of repeating myself, and I will attempt to do so when it’s warranted. But given that the opening section of this book is so steeped in vague and unsupported claims, I feel it’s important to slow down and highlight as many of them as possible. I didn’t even know there would be a Part 3c, but that seems to be the case. Stay tuned as I plod through the rest of Chapter 2.

Enhanced by Zemanta

On trial: ‘The Case for Christ,’ part 3a

This is the continuation of a series on Lee Strobel‘s, “The Case for Christ.” If you missed them, you can read Part 1 here and Part 2 here.

***

In Chapter 2, Strobel continues his interview with Craig Blomberg on the biblical evidence from eyewitness testimony. Strobel begins by identifying eight tests in which people can subject the gospels to get closer to understanding of whether they are trustworthy and credible. I won’t go through every single one because at least three of them, “character,” “bias” and “corroboration” are only given a few paragraphs each, which basically amount to Blomberg’s opinions on whether the gospel writers were of good character, recorded the events with integrity and used other sources to verify various places and events that they reference. I’ll only mention the five paragraphs Strobel calls “The Corroboration Test.”

Strobel asks:

When the gospels mention people, places, and events, do they check out to be correct in cases in which they can be independently verified? Often such corroboration is invaluable in assessing whether a writer has a commitment to accuracy.

Blomberg responds:

Yes, they do, and the longer people explore this, the more the details get confirmed. Within the last hundred years archaeology has repeatedly unearthed discoveries that have confirmed specific references to the gospels, particularly the gospel of John — ironically, the one that supposedly so suspect!

Now, yes, there are still some unresolved issues, and there have been times when archaeology has created new problems, but those are a tiny minority compared with the number of examples of corroboration.

In addition, we can learn through non-Christian sources a lot of facts about Jesus that corroborate key teachings and events in his life.

Here, Strobel offers no notes that back up Blomberg’s claim about archaeological evidence, and Blomberg mentions no examples to support his claim either. Here’s a list of some of the Christian archaeological finds, none of which lends any credibility to Jesus or his miracles, just that select elements of the gospels, for instance, the pool of Bethesda and the historicity of Caiaphas, may have reflected actual people and places.

Further, Blomberg contends that non-Christian sources lend credibility to the gospels, but let me make this very clear: there is no contemporary source or bit of evidence that confirms the existence of Jesus. Not one. Here is a list, and here is former pastor Dan Barker on the subject:

There is not a single contemporary historical mention of Jesus, not by Romans or by Jews, not by believers or by unbelievers, not during his entire lifetime. This does not disprove his existence, but it certainly casts great doubt on the historicity of a man who was supposedly widely known to have made a great impact on the world. Someone should have noticed.

Christians sometimes like to claim that Josephus 37-100 A.D. was a believable non-Christian who wrote about Jesus, although he was not contemporary. This is the relevant passage:

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law …

While this passage may be authentic, two problems exist. First, it’s hard to believe that an historian would mention the Messiah almost as an after thought and buried in a long section of text. Second, why would Josephus, an observant Jew or possibly a priest at one time, would admit that Jesus was the Christ? I wrote more about this here: Josephus and the historical Jesus. Here’s another explanation of Josephus.

Strobel, ever the “unbiased” journalist said Blomberg answer was “concise and helpful.” While it may have been concise, it was lacking on detail. Of course, I can’t blame Blomberg since he knows full well that there are no credible details that he could have presented to support the authenticity of the gospels, much less of the life and miracles of Jesus. Ever the go-getter, Strobel tells us at the end of this short section on corroboration that he is jotting down a note to himself:

Get expert opinions from archaeologist and historian.

I guess we’ll get to that in Chapter 5 when Strobel speaks with John McRay, one of his “experts” who also happens to be an apologist.

So these don’t run too long, I’ll address the rest of this chapter in the next post.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The omnipotence paradox

Via YouTube:

In a video series YouTube user Mike Winger calls, “Things Atheists Should Never Say,” he claims that nonbelievers should never ask this question to believers: “Can God make a rock so big He can’t lift it?”

I believe the typical phraseology goes like this: “Can God create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it,” with the common perception being that if God is all-powerful, he could, in theory, create an object bigger than his omnipotence will allow him to lift, thus hurling his supposed nature into logical entropy. This is called the omnipotence paradox.

Now, I’m not going to write a long essay defending this question. I and fellow nonbelievers don’t need this question, as it were, to tear holes through Christianity and religion in general, but I will add a few words in reference to some comments made over in Mike’s comments section on YouTube.

First, here was my initial response to his video:

What are the list of things an all-powerful god can’t do? It must be a short list. If an all-powerful god has a constraint in character, he is not his own agent, but rather, is answerable to some other entity. If this definition of omnipotence is wrong, then we need another definition of what you mean by “god,” because the traditional Judeo-Christian view holds that he is not only all-powerful but he is the source of all morality, this he has no constraints of character except of his choosing.

And his response:

Again, the false thinking is when we assume that the lack of the ability to do something is because of a lack of power. God cannot lie, this is because of His character not because of some lack of power. This leads to all sorts of strange thinking, I mean, how much more power does God need till He can lie? It starts to sound more and more ridiculous then more you explore it. All powerful doesn’t mean “can do anything” but it does mean “is not limited by any lack of power.”

If I can borrow a line from Nwolfe35 from the Defending the Truth forum, the apologist’s explanation about God’s supposed power usually becomes whatever it needs to be to defend the faith. Thus, Mike is saying here that it is part of God’s nature that he can’t lie, not that he has the inability to lie because of “some lack of power.” OK, but on whose authority does Mike know that God can’t lie? Because the Bible says so? And outside of the passage in Hebrew about God’s supposed natural inability to lie, how does he know? Before going on, I’ll argue again: who says God can’t tell a lie? In any case, he would need to expend very little actual energy to do so.

All we need to do is take a look at scripture to understand that not only God can lie, he does it quite openly. He tells Adam that if he eats of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, he will die (More to the point, the writer of Genesis should have said “when Adam eats” of the fruit because God already knew it was going to happen). Christians like to say this is a figurative statement, but the verse simply doesn’t support it, and any attempt to read back into the story doctrine that would be developed much later in the church’s history is vacuous. The Hebrew word, “מוּת,” is used in this instance, and none of the definitions support some kind of delayed punishment that would befall sinners that was later developed in the New Testament, but the meaning is an immediate and/or premature death. Of course, we know that’s not what happened in the tale: Adam lived to be 930 years old — unless we are to believe that Adam’s punishment was being subjected to centuries of shear boredom. I don’t see how someone could argue that when the writer of Genesis jotted down “מוּת,” that he had in mind a spiritual death or delayed punishment, and certainly not that Adam would live to the ripe old age of 930. Yes, mankind was “cursed” because of the sin, but the quote about Adam eating the fruit did not say that he would be cursed, but that he would die (מוּת), as if the tree contained a poisonous fruit, which is actually the impression I got as I read this as a child. My literal childlike mind knew then that, in context, God was talking about an immediate death based on a severe disobedient action. Further, doesn’t God talk to himself (or to the other members of the godhead … or whatever) when he claims that if mankind eats of the fruit, they will become like “us,” knowing good and evil? Here is more support for a physical death interpretation: by becoming like God, mankind would have to leave his carnal existence for a spiritual one.

Next up in the pack of lies is the covenant. Yahweh tells Abram that he would inherent all the land of Canaan. This did not happen, either in the Bible or historically.

Acts 7:5: And he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on: yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child.

Acts 7:17-18: But when the time of the promise drew nigh, which God had sworn to Abraham, the people grew and multiplied in Egypt, Till another king arose, which knew not Joseph.

Hebrews 11:13: These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

Hebrews 11:38-40: … they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth. And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

And historically:

But back to the original question. The argument against whether God can create something too heavy that he can’t lift is not an argument against God, necessarily, but an argument against the idea of omnipotence. Believers’ attempts to redefine omnipotence, which means

1. almighty or infinite in power, as God.
2. having very great or unlimited authority or power.

doesn’t erase the problem of omnipotence, no more than it erases the problem of omniscience, for “infinite in power” must include the ability to make a very large rock indeed, and yes, even one that crushes the logic of omnipotence under its weight. Suggestions that God can’t do something outside of his character presupposes that God gets his character from an outside source or force. If God wants to lie, he is certainly at liberty to do so because even he supercedes whatever may have been written about him in the Bible. If he wanted to change the laws of physics so that humans could walk through walls if he so desired, he could. Indeed, he does do this in some sense if we are to believe that all humans are immortal and will exist as massless souls in the afterlife.

The logic behind this question, then, is not airtight only if Christians are allowed to change the definition of omnipotent to suggest that God can’t perform an action that is against his character or nature. First, we can’t possibly know what that character is, and any believer who claims to know an all-powerful creator of the universe is either deluded or lying. Second, an all-powerful creator of the universe would seem to be unconstrained by space, time and logic itself since he knows every detail about the past, present and future. If he is beholden to the ideas that 1+1=2 or that triangles have three sides, he is not in control of everything. He could just as easily, at his whim, decree that he was changing the rules so that four-sided objects would not be called circles, dogs would now be called pigs, horses would grow wings and birds would no longer fly. If he can make our world and perfectly tune Earth to have the right conditions for life, he can just as easily send it hurling toward the sun or remove our ozone layer and let the sun scorch us to death.

How is it that Christians can say that God is constrained by the nature of his character, and thus, can’t do absolutely anything, yet still believe that he knows the future? How is omniscience more acceptable logically than God having the ability to change the laws of physics or the rules of math? As earlier stated, believers’ attempts to make God fit within the bounds of some defined character traits gets God off the hook, as it were, from being fully omnipotent and fully illogical, thus he is given whatever power necessary to defend the belief. In this case, God appears to have been demoted by several steps. I must have been mistaken; I thought this god was truly “awesome,” as the song goes. It seems that believers who do not fully believe in omnipotence and all its implications have a rather dim view of their god, so much so that the explanations given to show that God somehow does not have unlimited power or authority or is somehow constrained seems to pose more severe problems for believers than the recitation of this question in question, silly or not.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Response to ‘Why Atheism+ Should Lead to Interfaith Dialogue’

Boy, did Be Scofield catch the Atheism Plus bus about three months too late.

In his column, “Why Atheism+ Should Lead to Interfaith Dialogue,” he rehashes how Jen McCreight called for a “third wave” of atheism and how the A+ “movement” has caught fire online. Of course, he failed to mention that A+ is about as done as burnt toast at this point. Skeptically Left summarized the beginning of the end quite fittingly with this gem:

Its (Atheism+) fate was sealed when optimistic supporter, Matt Dillahunty, President of the Atheist Community of Austin and Host of Non-Prophet Radio got banned from the A+ forums in an attempt to show that those forums were fair to outsiders. To make a long story short, he quickly found out that they weren’t.

In any case, in Johhny Come Lately fashion, Scofield proceeds to tell us how Atheism Plus, and presumably atheists at large, should welcome a partnership with “progressive religious organizations” to move social justice forward:

I applaud all of those who have already laid out their visions and ideas about where this movement can go. There is, however one important question that has yet to be addressed. The answer to it could have profound ramifications for the future of atheism in all of its expressions. How will Atheism+ affect atheists’ relationship to religion?

Well, that is certainly is a question that I don’t think has been asked up to this point, mostly because many nonbelievers like myself have not only moved on from religion, but have moved past it. Way past it. Of course, to understand why Scofield raised such a question to begin with, one must understand that Scofield has been working on a master’s of divinity from Starr King School for the Ministry in Berkeley. I don’t know what a master’s of divinity is either, other than a faux-degree that has no meaning or value in a world free of religion and theology.

Atheism Plus’s slow demise makes most of Scofield’s article completely irrelevant, but let’s pretend that it doesn’t for a minute. Or, better yet, let’s pretend that instead of talking about A+ specifically, let’s just say that he might, in similar fashion, call for cooperation on social justice issues between “progressive” believers and run of the mill atheists, freethinkers or secular humanists. What then? What would such a partnership look like? Scofield asks us to consider a few questions:

Will (atheists) … be willing, in the name of social justice, to form new alliances, coalitions and networks with progressive religious organizations and people who are interested? Engage in interfaith dialogue? Explore the rich justice based traditions found within most any religious group? Soften the antagonistic rhetoric to advance the common good? Learn about the liberation based and prophetic teachings in religion and why they matter to people resisting injustice?

“Justice based traditions” found in most religions? Does he mean human sacrifice? How about stoning? Or eternal punishment by fire and brimstone for ever and ever? I can’t speak for everyone, but I dare say that even Atheism Plus supporters chafe when considering the “justice” of most religions. And what is that about the “liberation based and prophetic teachings” of religion? What does that have to do with issues of social justice? Certain religions teach liberation from this world, but most of the time, it is a type of liberation at the damning expense of millions of others who don’t follow that particular denomination or sect. Does he mean enlightenment ideas found in Buddhism? Maybe, but that’s more about personal enrichment than helping people on a broad scale have more fulfilling lives and supporting egalitarian principles. Further, how could the phony prophetic teachings of religion add anything to the conversation about social justice?

Scofield concludes:

Atheism+ is an exciting movement. I’m looking forward to seeing it grow and evolve. We can use this opportunity to bridge divided worlds, build interfaith coalitions and make social justice campaigns stronger. Imagine the Atheism+ movement and progressive religious groups united in solidarity against the real enemies: oppression, injustice and indifference!

Atheism+ is about as exciting as a rendition of “Taps.” In some ways, “progressive” or “liberal” Christians or other religious people are worse than evangelicals because while evangelicals are at least being honest when they tell you straight up that you are bound for an eternity in hell, progressive Christians want to gloss over the nasty bits about their religion, or redact them altogether, to make themselves and their faith appear less brutal and arcane than it actually is. Of course, Scofield’s last sentence is almost laughable since religion has at one time or another (indeed, throughout most of its history) gleefully supported both oppression and injustice, so for it to now make an about-face seems like a stretch. I certainly would hope that these “progressive” believers continue on a path more focused on social justice than dogma and divisiveness, but that will take place in spite of religion, not because of it.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Freethought Tweets of the day: Atheism Plus edition

The WoolyBumblebee ‏@WoolyBumblebee #Atheismplus has 2044 users – 13 mods – 3 admin – 38 banned users = 1990. Of which only 831 ever made MORE than ONE post on the forums.

Atheism+ ‏@atheismplus #atheismplus inclusiveness. Everyone is welcome, just so long as you’re not foreign. Or if you are, you’d better have PERFECT English.

Atheism+ ‏@atheismplus In #atheismplus we have special words. Objections are ‘hate’. Objectors are ‘angry at outspoken women’. Dislike of us/A+ is ‘misogyny’.

Atheist Smeghead ‏@AtheistSmeghead My question about #atheismplus STILL hasn’t been answered: What do those social issues have to do with a lack of belief in any deity?

Renee Hendricks ‏@reneehendricks Really? http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=26361#p26361 … WTF is wrong with those mods on #AtheismPlus? Gigantic asshats, I swear.

The post she is referencing:

Re: Men: Are You Willing To Be Called A Potential Rapist?

Postby maiforpeace » Sun Oct 07, 2012 11:34 pm

Specimen, bonjour!I speak several languages including French, and I’m afraid you don’t possess the English language skills to communicate properly in such a serious and mindful discussion. I think you are better off just reading right now, and maybe you can get a buddy who writes English better to help you write posts so you can participate and offer your own contributions to this thread.

So I will ask you politely to desist from posting further in this thread. Thank you, Mai

A reader was asked to quit posting because they don’t speak perfect English? Wtf.

And further down in the thread:

Postby Flewellyn » Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:19 am

MOD NOTE: This topic is no longer serving a useful purpose. It has been locked.

So an admin just locks a conversation whenever they subjectively feel it’s no longer serving a purpose? Stunning.

More Tweets:

Stormye Weather ‏@Nuclear_Wynter Can you imagine a room full of black men pontificating on being labeled “potential criminals” to make white people feel safe?!#atheismplus

Maria Maltseva ‏@bluharmony @Stefanelli is my hero: Q&A about Atheism Plus, White Male Privilege, Guilt by Association, Schrodinger’…http://freethoughtblogs.com/alstefanelli/2012/10/09/qanda/ … …

Za-zen ‏@Zaminuszen Next time that homeless wanker logs on to his laptop, somebody please point him to #AtheismPlus forums so we can correct his privilege.

Jamie Stanton ‏@finalcontext Just told by #atheismplus mod that treating people equally regardless of gender, race etc makes me “part of the problem” *head explodes*

Enhanced by Zemanta

The faces of feminism, ctd.

So, apparently something I said recently struck a nerve with one reader with my last post, to the point that he felt compelled to say near the end of our discussion in the comments section:

You’re under no obligation to support your assertions with, you know, actual evidence in your rant against atheists who blog on feminist issues. And we who are reading your post are under no obligation to take you seriously when you not only don’t do so but make grossly exaggerated claims and fail to admit being wrong when someone else takes the time to do the research you didn’t and point out your mistake.

He was commenting on the last post, in which I referenced “the type of hypersensitive, reactionary and every-male-is-a-potential-misogynist-or-rapist brand of feminism of the Rebecca Watson, Jen McCreight …”

This reader wanted me to cite references for my claims to prove that the Atheism Plus brand of feminism is indeed all the things I said it was. To which I said that my impression of the A+ feminists was just that, an impression and that I did not need to dredge through reams of posts and comments to validate an impression that I have gotten through two or three months of reading about this issue. I felt that would be a waste of time on my part because even if I had brought back quotes or links that I viewed as hypersensitive or reactionary, presumably this reader would have simply disagreed with my interpretation, and we would be at square one. Interestingly, I never received any quotes or links to invalidate my claim.

Further, note that I never said that Watson, McCreight and the like thought every man was a misogynist or a rapist, but based on their own posts and comments from their supporters, I got the impression that their brand of feminism was one that characterized men as potential misogynists, at best, and potential rapists, at worst. Perhaps I should have clarified further in the original post, but I thought my use of the English language was clear enough. Apparently not.

Of course, all of this does not address the myriad offenses and mishaps of the Atheism Plus crowd. For that, I highly recommend ‘s post, “Atheism Plus: We’re Atheists… But We Behave Like Christians!

Enhanced by Zemanta

The faces of feminism

Deacon Duncan over at Free Thought Blogs made an interesting post today about feminism and what he calls, “counterfeminism.” Duncan grappled with the question of why some women are vehemently against feminism when, indeed, it has been the feminists who “are fighting to win them equal rights. It boggles my mind.”

OK, so when approaching questions like this, especially when referencing writers at FtB, it becomes necessary to determine whether said writer is referring to the type of hypersensitive, reactionary and every-male-is-a-potential-misogynist-or-rapist brand of feminism of the Rebecca Watson, Jen McCreight, or the run-of-the-mill hypersensitive feminism that has been with us for decades. Since Duncan has voiced his support for Atheism Plus, I suggest that it’s the former.

Duncan provides his definition of feminism and counterfeminism:

The feminist is working to establish women as autonomous and respected individuals who are equal in status, opportunity, and financial compensation, as compared to their male counterparts. The feminist assumption is that the ideal condition for women is equality. But that’s not necessarily an assumption shared by all, not even by all women.

It’s possible that there’s a counterfeminist assumption that the ideal condition for women is one of dependency and entitlement …

I prefaced this with a brief mention of Atheism Plus because Duncan’s post seems to suggest that in characterizing those who oppose feminism, he seems to be referring to the women who are against the A+ brand of feminism. It’s not believable that he would be referring to any other group since he’s writing at a place called Free Thought Blogs. But at the same time, I have never met, for instance, a female atheist, online or in person, who thinks that the ideal condition for women is dependence and entitlement, other than the aforementioned jaded individuals who think the male world is out to get them. So, I can only conclude that he is talking about some type of mid-20th century housewife, or perhaps, a 19th century Southern belle, neither of whom could in any sense be described as feminist in the modern sense. Or, as he describes it:

… that in a perfect world, a woman would live by forming an attachment to a man, who would then provide her with food, clothes, a home, and some spending money in return for a bit of light housework and some sexual gratification now and then.

This seems to me to be an outdated characterization that isn’t anything like feminism at all. Thus, I don’t know from where this theory of a type of “counterfeminism” comes.

I have already identified two types:

  • Feminism 1: reactionary and every-male-is-a-potential-misogynist-or-rapist brand of feminism
  • Feminism 2: run-of-the-mill hypersensitive feminism

and here is a third type:

  • Feminism 3: non-reactionary brand that fully supports equality, rights, critical thinking, rationality and female emotional and mental strength that is not necessarily comfortable with the “feminist” label.

I wouldn’t dare speak for them, but I have a small hunch that the women who do not support the Atheism Plus brand of feminism, and further, if the word “feminist” weren’t so damaged by overemotional, reactionary whiners of the current stripe, they may be willing to consider adopting the title if it truly signaled a characteristically strong form of female-ness with all the aforementioned rights in tact. That word, however, may now be damaged beyond repair at this point.

Enhanced by Zemanta