Skip to main content

Competition winner!

Thanks for all the entries to the "Atheism is a faith position too" competition.

I have thought long and hard, and come up with the following decision. The winner is:

Austin Cline, for this example from Rowan Williams and Cormac Murphy-O'Connor:

Many secularist commentators argue that the growing role of faith in society represents a dangerous development.

However, they fail to recognise that public atheism is itself an intolerant faith position.

This is from the foreword of a report called "Doing God" available here. I went to the original source to check and I could not find a single argument in the entire document to support the contention that "public atheism is itself an intolerant faith position."

As part of a public joint statement by the heads of the Catholic and Anglican churches in the UK, offered without any justification whatsoever, it scores very highly for being irritating, and gains some extra points for being slightly sinister!

Austin - email me your postal address.

Judge's decision is final, of course.

Comments

Sargeist said…
Thanks for the link to the report. Something that I think the internet "requires" in all articles is a nice, clear pointer to ones sources. The BBC website usually infuriates me with its general inability to do this.

Back to the topic: Not sure what they mean by "public" atheism. Should I be keeping my atheism down the back of the sofa? I shall have a read of the report; I just hope it won't contain any bizarre "defining God to be anything that stops you being able to pick holes in it" verbal gymnastics.

On another note: What do you think about Rowan Williams' apparent unwillingness to just "come out" and say to some of his flock "your views on homosexuality are outdated and simply wrong"? A Christian friend of mine claims that Dr Williams might be trying to keep his trap shut to avoid ending up with a split in the church that would be "worse" in the long run than the intolerance that is being shown towards people who are told they are bad simply for fancying members of their own sex.

My response was that Jesus himself didn't seem to be reported as giving much of a damn about keeping his mouth shut. Where would all those Christian arguments be now if Jesus hadn't been scratching in the sand and making pithy comments?
James James said…
Congratulations to Austin.

Good prize, too. I'm waiting until the paperback comes out. Is there any difference between the hardback and paperback?
Larry Hamelin said…
Grrrr... Oh, is this on? Congratulations, Austin. :-)
stormshadowcult said…
Congrats to Austin......I'm a big fan of his.

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

What is Humanism?

What is Humanism? “Humanism” is a word that has had and continues to have a number of meanings. The focus here is on kind of atheistic world-view espoused by those who organize and campaign under that banner in the UK and abroad. We should acknowledge that there remain other uses of term. In one of the loosest senses of the expression, a “Humanist” is someone whose world-view gives special importance to human concerns, values and dignity. If that is what a Humanist is, then of course most of us qualify as Humanists, including many religious theists. But the fact remains that, around the world, those who organize under the label “Humanism” tend to sign up to a narrower, atheistic view. What does Humanism, understood in this narrower way, involve? The boundaries of the concept remain somewhat vague and ambiguous. However, most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view.

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o