timeimmortal

Not directly, at least. Fortunately, Wordpress keeps an accurate list of inbound links. He has his own blog, and has decided to issue his response to my latest reply to him there. That’s just as well; he wasn’t doing all that well via the contact form.

He seems to be clinging to insisting that all Religions are basically the same (a common fallacy among atheists, I have learned). To which I can only say, again, what I said to him before: “While you see a distinction between various sports, as an non-sports fan I simply don’t see those as significant. Honestly, the difference in rules and methods between almost any two sports is virtually meaningless to me. I don’t see a massive difference, in many ways, between playing golf and playing football…”

(All I’m doing in the above quote, O Reader, is repeating a statement Joel made about religions, re-dressed to cover an alternative topic; the absurdity of Joel’s stance is pretty clear.)

Joel posits thusly:

Once you believe in an all-powerful supernatural entity that controls the universe and his divine son that was killed and then rose from the dead, any distinctions between particular interpretations of these beings and stories really does fall by the wayside**.

For example, lets suppose I’m schitzophrenic. And I believe that the dog is talking to me telepathically. Would you see any real difference between me and the other schitzophrenic that believes the dog is talking to him vocally?

Of course not.

Once again, Joel’s ignorance shows through: there could be any number of differences between two schizophrenics talking to the dog. The question of the magnitude of symptoms comes up — of what duration, and what severity, are each person’s episodes? The question of medication comes up — is either person medicated? What kind of medication, and in what strength, is each person on? Is it perhaps time to adjust each person’s medication? The question of response comes up — should we let each person continue talking to the dog? Should we inform someone? Should we call the police? We might even ask what kind of dog is being addressed. Are the two schizophrenics speaking to the same dog? Is the dog (or “are the dogs”) responding, in any way, to either schizophrenic?

The point is that there is more to the scene than just what the eye glimpses at first. There is not only room for, but a need for, greater inquiry, because we cannot understand the situation until we ask some follow-up questions. And I might also point out, since Joel seems of a mind that atheists should “do something” about the pervasiveness of religion in America (”the battle we fight,” he termed it), the only way to properly respond to any situation is to dig a little deeper in order to better compose your response in a manner that is specifically tailored to the person being dealt with.

In other words, the proper response to schizophrenic #1 might be wholly different than the proper response to schizophrenic #2 — if we treat them both the same, there is a risk of doing unnecessary damage to at least one of them, until and unless we allow our actions and responses to them to be informed by additional inquiry. Dismissing them as just another couple of schizos is simply unacceptable, in addition to being dishonest.

Not that Joel seems to care all that much: he flogs the death of a single child as an indictment against all religion, even though the parents of the child were members of a cult widely derided and disavowed by mainstream Christianity. Had Madeline Kara Neumann been born to Catholic parents, she’d probably still be alive — whither Joel’s big issue* then? Moreover, whither Joel’s point that all religions are the same — there are religions out there in which young Madeline would have easily survived, grown up in, and thrived in.

But Joel has no interest in digging any deeper than he has to, and cares not for the fact that even though he himself is not a member of anything he would recognize as a religion, the vast differences that exist between the different religions are not a side point in the debate; they are the debate. Because what is atheism, if not a rather odd — and somewhat counter-intuitive — form of religion (in that it is a philosophical conjecture, a belief in a universal negative)? Funnily, I’m pretty sure that Joel would be offended if I called him a racist, and would rush to disprove the charge. At least, I would hope he would.

But if one thinks about it, O Reader, how is what he has said any different from the sort of bigotry that necessarily informs Racism? His basic contention, at least as regards Madeline Kara Neumann, seems to be that if a religion has at any point caused the death of a person, all religions are to be held accountable. Applying similar logic, we could argue that we should jail all black people the next time a Jamaican gang banger guns someone down on Jane Street in Toronto.

Hmmn…and here I thought it was us theists who were supposed to be closed-minded and bigoted (not to mention uninquisitive).

Joel also asks:

Its sort of like trying to talk with someoine who believes magic runs every little bit of the world. How could you talk physics?

Numerous science fiction authours demonstrate a rather handy fusion of physics and magic in their works, O Reader. Not that I believe in magic, of course — I merely observe that several works of speculative fiction nicely bridge the two concepts. But then, realizing that would require a person to have an inquiring mind, wouldn’t it?

Amusingly, one of the people commenting on Joel’s article added this nugget of “wisdom”:

To the point where they can’t actually understand anyone who might find their beliefs to be, well, insane.

Their very identity and that religion are so intertwined as to be inseperable.
Therefor, no significant dissent is really allowable.
(oh, you might allow it, but you treat it as if it were spoken by children)

What moleboy doesn’t realize, of course, is that much the same can be said both about atheism and those who follow that particular philosophical conjecture, and about the way many Catholics — including, more than occasionally, myself — wind up having to speak to them because of it.

But then, that shouldn’t come as much of a surprise. There is no such thing as someone who does not believe, after all. The great question is not whether we shall believe, but what we shall believe, and atheism is just one more entrant in list of beliefs that can be found the world over. And everyone who believes — every human being, then — is rather strongly wedded to their beliefs. Joel and moleboy’s identities are strongly intertwined with their atheism, and I’ve already had to speak to Joel…well…if not like a child, than at least like an intellectual inferior. I don’t really enjoy doing so, preferring discussions to be between equals whenever possible. But that hasn’t been possible in this case.

* ten blog posts in the last month and change; easily one of his most talked-about subjects

** I’m sure Muslims, Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, Wiccans, and various other religions would have something to say about this, since they do not acknowledge one or both of a) God and b) Christ. But hey, what do I know, being a deluded theist? Fortunately, I have atheists nearby to correct my thinking.

Joel’s paranoid fears nonwithstanding, in the real world it does not appear to be Christianity that is invading America and silencing freedom of expression. Indeed, secularism seems to be taking on that role.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ruled that a football coach may not silently bow his head or “take a knee” with his team as gestures of respect during student-led prayers prior to a game.

Think about that for a second. The students are allowed to pray before a game if they wish, but the coach isn’t. He can’t even bow his head for a moment. Whatever happened to freedom of religion, or freedom of expression (come to think of it)? Whither the Constitution, as I asked Joel previously?

It is ridiculous to think that a court can rule on whether or not head movements by an individual are permissible or not — especially in America. And yet, essentially, that is what has been done. The coach must refrain from engaging in any voluntary motion which might indicate any sympathy with the actions of his students or the beliefs they are expressing as they pray, in spite of the fact that the coach very likely shares some of those beliefs and has a Constitutionally-protected right against the law intruding into his right to expres them.

There must have been a football game tonight.

Where was this taken?

I must have just missed the game — a shame, really, since it might have been nice to take some pictures of the players in action. Clarke Stadium, immediately south (practically “in the shadow of”) Commonwealth Stadium, is used these days primarily by high school and community football teams, typically for competition play (finals, tournaments, etc.). I’ve played there a couple of times, back in those days when I played football.

I remember being under these lights. Generally speaking, I don’t have many fond memories of football (as two surgical scars on my left forearm often remind me), but I always enjoyed the lights. And on cold nights like tonight, when the field was flanked on all sides by snow, the lights were doubly special…the snow beneath them is dazzlingly white.

I’ll have to see if I can get by the field one evening when a game is being played; it’d be nice to try do some action work. My only regret is that for night work like this when I have no tripod, I have to increase the ISO setting on the camera, which makes for a noisier image.