Magazinery

For some reason, I picked up a copy of The Progressive the other day. "Letters to the Editor" has long been my favourite section no matter the publication, so I started there. Lo, and let the forehead-slapping out of frustration begin... I don't even have the energy to rant, as the letters were so consistently internally inconsistant that it would take too much typing and I have other things to do.

On to Scientific American instead. Whew.

Michael Shermer, with whom I sometimes agree, writes a generally insightful column for the mag. This one proved quite interesting (September 2007 edition).An open letter to Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens, it states that, "Whenever religious beliefs conflict with scientific facts or violate principles of political liberty, we must respond with appropriate aplomb. Nevertheless, we should be cautious about irrational exuberance." In the short and worthwhile essay, he goes on to present what could be called a five-point guideline for arguing the cause of atheism. In brief:

"1- Anti-something movements by themselves will fail." He quotes Von Mises here, "People must fight for something they want to acheive, not simply reject an evil, however bad it may be." (I chuckle a bit at this, as it proves that even Von Mises saw something with clarity.) Really, any parent who is paying attention will tell you that just saying "Stop it" will not get the results- more effective is the addendum, "do this instead."

"2- Positive assertions are necessary." How many times have I heard "Religion is just bad"? Too many. I don't really want to get into the defence of religion, but have to say, unless you can answer the question "Do you have anything better?" without the circular argument that it's better because of what it's not, you're not going to get far.

"3- Rational is as rational does." No schnitt there. Harris (here we go again) suggesting that we could ethically kill someone for holding an idea is rational how, again? Ignoring the tenets of a religion and choosing to see only the extreme elements in order to paint everyone of the beleif with the same inflamatory brush is rational how? That's not even good science, let alone good thinking. Ignore the evidence you do not like? Way to get the big picture. I'll stop now. Sagan is quoted in this; "You can get into a habit of thought in which you enjoy making fun of all those other people who don't see things as clearly as you do. We have to guard carefully against it." Words to live by.

"4- The Golden Rule is Symentrical. In the words of the greatest consciousness raiser of the twentieth century, Dr Martin Luther King, Jr., in his epic 'I have a Dream' speech: 'In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline.' If atheists do not want theists to prejudge them in a negative light, then they must not do unto theists the same." I think that says it all, and well.

"5- Promote freedom of belief and disbelief." Thinking, and the freedom to think must be guarded for everyone. MLK, again: "The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realise that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realise that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom."

I Have a Dream speech entire. If you have never heard the whole thing, please do.