Islam and the failure of western liberalism, redux, and the regressive left

Several developments have taken place in the four weeks or so since I echoed the arguments of Sam Harris and others that western liberalism, infected by a hyper-political correctness and intellectual dishonesty run amok, has essentially failed the very people that we should be the most concerned about at this point in our history — namely, skeptics, homosexuals and women who are under the heel of oppression in places like Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iraq, unable to speak, much less, live freely because of the influence of literalist strains of Islam in their culture.

Dave Rubin with Maajid Nawaz

Dave Rubin with Maajid Nawaz

Leaders of western, secular thought in America and Europe, from the ivory tower and so-called intellectuals, to the media, apparently afraid of who they might offend, seem to have no problem criticizing Christians for their views on social conservativism, many of which are inspired directly from passages in the Bible, but are quick to dismiss people like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris as bigots when the conversation turns to Islam and its blot on modern society. For my money, Dawkins and Harris have remained true to the spirit and nature of New Atheism in refusing to don kid gloves in criticizing the faulty ideologies of Islam.

Oftentimes, this inability or unwillingness to admit what the problem actual is is more pronounced, in the case of Muslim apologists like Reza Aslan, Glenn Greenwald and Cenk Uygur, or it can take a more passive tone, as in this recent 1,000-plus word article from The New York Times. Here is what I said on Twitter about it a few days ago:

Apologists for the faith, and their passive let’s-skirt-around-the-problem-and-hope-terrorism-and-religiously-fueled-violence-just-goes-away-on-its-own liberal friends have been actively preventing us as a society from having the kind of open conversation we so desperately need on the true roots of jihadism and what causes otherwise intelligent people to become radicalized and willing to hurl themselves into buildings and lop off the heads of journalists in the first place.

Maajid Nawaz, Sam Harris’ co-author on the new book, “Islam and the Future of Tolerance,” coined the term “regressive left” to refer to these liberals who are on the wrong side of the dialogue on Islam and on the wrong side of history.

Fortunately, in part because of the important work of Harris and Nawaz, that conversation seems to be taking place, at least in some capacity here in America, although my hunch is that the large majority of mainstream liberals, for example, folks who think Ben Affleck actually won the debate in his now-infamous confrontation with Harris and Bill Maher, continue to live with politically correct blinders firmly in place.

For the rest of you who actually care about things like intellectual honesty and having a reasonable conversation on the necessity for reform inside Islam, in addition to Harris and Nawaz, I would suggest seeking out related content from the following: Dave Rubin, Joe Rogan, Gad Saad, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Sarah Haider and Ali Rizvi.

Obviously, all of these people are not going to agree on every point, but that is the point: to allow an open discussion on the problematic ideologies of Islam without demeaning Muslims as people or castigating those who dare criticize the religion as bigots and Islamophobes, which is just a counterproductive shut-down tactic.

Next to climate change, this is, in my view, the most important conversation we should be having globally.

Following is a collection of recent interviews and vblogs on regressive leftism and Islam that demonstrate the kind of dialogue that needs to take place on a larger scale among liberals and reform-minded Muslims.

Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz on MSNBC’s “The Last Word:”

Richard Dawkins on “Real Time with Bill Maher:”

Gad Saad’s on Nawaz’s efforts to reform Islam:

Dave Rubin with Sam Harris:

Joe Rogan with Ali Rizvi (not as recent, but still an interesting interview with Rizvi, an ex-Muslim atheist):

Sam Harris loses his patience with the regressive left:

Proselytizing with the ‘Good News?’

Atheists and agnostics can go too far in trying to disseminate their philosophy to the world, and I think it’s safe to say Peter Boghossian, author of “A Manuel for Creating Atheists,” has reached that point, and unfortunately, the book has received endorsements from the likes of Richard Dawkins, Dan Barker and Michael Shermer, the latter of whom even provides the foreward.

boghossian.jpg

It’s one thing to post atheism-related videos, quotes or memes on Facebook or in other forums, hoping something might hit a nerve. Believers certainly take liberties to post their own faith-infused, logically bankrupt messages to the world; why should we not follow suit and bring reason back to the public discourse? It’s one thing to be open about your nonbelief and willing to discuss it with believers if asked. It’s one thing to want to meet up with like-minded nonbelievers to create a sense of community and belonging. I understand all of those positions.

But it’s quite another to actively proselytize to believers as “street epistemologists,” as Boghossian calls it, approach strangers and engage in “clinical interventions designed to disabuse them of their faith,” which, forgive me for saying it, but sounds oddly similar to “auditing” in Scientology.

As one example, Boghossian said that when he goes to the bank, he tries to pick out a teller wearing a cross and then strike up a conversation about religion:

… Every time I see her I go out of my way to wait in her line, and I immediately begin the intervention.

And Barker had this to say in support of the book:

Since atheism is truly Good News, it should not be hidden under a bushel.

First off, atheism has no core message or doctrine or creed other than the assertion that there are no gods, and it definitely has no message to the world in the same way that the New Testament and Christian theology purports a worldview and a pattern for living based on scripture, so what exactly can atheists hope to achieve by asserting their nonbelief on unsuspecting believers other than lending support to the argument — most recently portrayed in that noxious movie, “God Is Not Dead,” — that all nonbelievers are arrogant and rabid gadflys who think they know everything?

About the closest thing to a “message” atheists might hope to convey is that truth can be found in logic and reason and a person can indeed lead a happy and fulfilling life without religion. The difference here is that Christianity at its core claims to provide fulfillment in life as a direct result of believing in Jesus. Atheism claims no such thing for itself. Many nonbelievers are perfectly happy and would probably describe their lives as exceeding rich and fulfilling, while some atheists may be completely miserable, but that may or may not have anything to do with their lack of belief in god. Christianity attempts to describe a direct correlation between happiness and belief. Of course, for an “evangelical” atheist attempting to reach believers with their own brand of “good news,” an appeal to reason and rationality will be all but lost on most Christians unless the believer still has some logical embers glowing somewhere deep in the recesses of their brain. The entire branch of apologetics from Thomas Aquinus to C.S. Lewis on down the line is built on a tower of unfounded assumptions heaped on more assumptions that are, in turn, proliferated ceaselessly in church, so few evangelical Christians are even going to have the tools necessary to reason themselves out of faith. Thus, even the best efforts of people like Boghossian to lead believers away from faith will, more times than not, end in lots of frustration and head-banging.

Further, I’m sure this rather obvious next point has not been lost on other nonbelievers, but actively proselytizing to the public makes us no better than fanatical Christians or Mormons. What’s next? Passing out copies of “The God Delusion” at college campuses and shouting from street corners like religious zealots? I don’t want to associate myself with zealots, religious or otherwise.

The beauty about freethought, agnosticism or atheism is that there is no higher calling, and thus, no reason or purpose other than our own sense of self-satisfaction to evangelize to believers. What would be the goal of the atheist who wants to proselytize to evangelical Christians? Will he single-handedly eradicate faith? Certainly not. Will he convince a person or two? Maybe. But like it or not, as long as people are afraid of the death, the dark and uncertainty about the afterlife, religion in some form is going to be around a long, long time, possibly until the end of the species itself.

If nonbelievers want to do something other than just ignoring Christians altogether, why not encourage friendly and respectful discussions about religion and freethought with believers, so long as both parties consent to talk about the subject in this way? While many Christians are simply unable to handle criticisms of their core beliefs, I have found that some actually enjoy having a dialogue about religion and questions of faith, even if it makes them think critically about why they believe. Why not point people toward resources like scholarly works on the historicity of Jesus, contradictions and errors in the Bible and the evidence for evolution? But don’t misunderstand me: If it is the atheist who is approached by a believer wanting to proselytize, then it’s open season.

Personally, I don’t talk about religious or nonreligion in person unless I’m asked about it, and even then, I don’t go out of my way to convince someone to turn away from their faith. I freely offer my thoughts on religion on this site and sometimes on Facebook and Twitter, and people are free to read it or ignore it. In addition, for believers with a genuine desire to know the truth — Many, I have found don’t have a genuine desire for the truth. They are happy to live and die without having to challenge their core beliefs. — Amazon has hundreds of books available, some for free, that explore the claims of the New Testament and Christian theology, the inadequacies of biblical science versus real science and fallacies of an all-loving, all-powerful god who is all things immoral, inconsistent, petty, brazenly violent and decidedly unjust.

The onus is on believers to provide arguments and evidence for their claims, and I just don’t see what nonbelievers have to gain from actively turning into the very proselytizing Bible thumpers we rail against. Rather than publicly flaunting atheism and catering to the bad stereotypes, why not disseminate the message that although we might live without a divine purpose —  rendering the act of proselytizing to believers not only a pointless but meaningless exercise — we do live with the truth and beauty we find in art, literature, poetry, music, love and life itself? I disagree with the methodology of street epistemology, but if we can utilize less off-putting ways to engage with believers that focuses on human solidarity and the human experience that exists across all faiths and ideologies, that might be a message worth sharing.

Progress and secularism


Credit: Ueslei Marcelino/Reuters

It is possible that mankind is on the threshold of a golden age; but if so, it will be necessary

first to slay the dragon that guards the door, and this dragon is religion.

***

These aren’t words penned by a so-called “new atheist” here in the 21st century. No, they came to us from more than 80 years ago by Bertrand Russell in the essay, “Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization.”

Russell is responsible for some of the simplest and most lucid arguments against, not only Christianity, but religion in general and toward a more secular approach to the education of children and the making of a better society. I think he would find it alarming and disconcerting that we are no further along than we are in slaying the dragon, although perhaps encouraged that more people around the world are identifying as nonbelievers (and even in the United States Congress).

By taking a softer line on concepts like eternal punishment, downplaying its stance on evolution and new-Earth theories and by embracing popular music and culture, Christianity, in particular, has saved itself from complete extinction for decades or, perhaps, centuries to come. The good thing about logic, however, is that holds water regardless of whether it is spread by Lucretius, Bertrand Russell, Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens, and the logic of the Christian religion is self-defeating.

As Russell pointed out in the same essay:

The world, we are told, was created by a God who is both good and omnipotent. Before He created the world He foresaw all the pain and misery that it would contain; He is therefore responsible for all of it.

While people like myself think that mankind would do itself a great favor if it would drop this fearful reliance on religion sooner than later, as I have said before, Christianity will persist so long as people view death as a proverbial event horizon between an eternity of rewards and punishments rather than the simple loss of consciousness that it actually is. As Mark Twain famously said:

I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leaving their religion

Pretty much everything these folks said in the video below sounds familiar, especially the person at the 1:00 minute mark who said that she eventually came to the point where she wanted the “scientific” evidence that Jesus and the Bible were real, not just in her head or heart, but, like, you know, real.

And she got her answer. It is amazing how a person’s life can change when they actually begin thinking critically. Religion is contemptible because, as the guy said here, it seeks to, at best, control, or at worst, destroy the one human trait that separates us from all the other species.

And that’s why it needs to be shown the door.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Atheist+ and Free Thought Blogs, ctd.

Four days ago, I highlighted those on Free Thought Blogs who were for, against or so far unspoken on Atheism+ (“Free Thought Bloggers: where they stand on Atheism+“).

Since then, at least two more Free Thought Bloggers have chimed in. One, AronRa does not feel the need to adopt the label personally but said that Atheism+ was

a branch of atheists specifically committed to the issues social justice … It’s like a new civil rights movement, but one completely stripped of religion.

And again I ask: how is that in any way different than secular humanism, which includes atheism along with notions of human dignity, civil rights and equality?

In any case, another blogger, Maryam Namazie, was formerly silent on the “movement.” She said she was “unequivocally” in support of Atheism+:

I personally don’t see it as a backlash against New Atheism or divisive in any way. In my opinion it is first and foremost a recognition of the fact that for many atheists – like myself – our atheism is intrinsically linked to issues of social justice.

The very vocal opposition to this very good idea is merely a confirmation of its importance, and when the dust settles, I do strongly believe that atheism and the various social justice movements will be the stronger for it.

“Atheism is intrinsically linked to issues of social justice?” How could that be? While I don’t agree, I understand if someone wants to say they are linking nonbelief with social justice as a matter of policy, but intrinsically? How could the disbelief in a god be intrinsically linked to anything other than the disbelief in god?

Enhanced by Zemanta