Richard Dawkins Rallies for Reason in Washington DC

This week­end, an esti­mat­ed 20,000 agnos­tics, athe­ists and ardent sec­u­lar­ists gath­ered on the Nation­al Mall in rainy Wash­ing­ton DC. They were attend­ing the first Rea­son Ral­ly, an event intend­ed to “uni­fy, ener­gize, and embold­en sec­u­lar peo­ple nation­wide, while dis­pelling the neg­a­tive opin­ions held by so much of Amer­i­can soci­ety… and hav­ing a damn good time doing it!” Lawrence KraussMichael Sher­mer, Eddie Izzard — they all spoke to the crowd. And then came Richard Dawkins, the high priest of rea­son, the author of The Self­ish Gene, who spent decades teach­ing evo­lu­tion­ary biol­o­gy at Oxford. In the mid­dle of his 16 minute talk, he tells the audi­ence, “We’re here to stand up for rea­son, to stand up for sci­ence, to stand up for log­ic, to stand up for the beau­ty of real­i­ty, and the beau­ty of the fact that we can under­stand real­i­ty.” I’m with you Richard on that. But then comes the scorn we’re now so accus­tomed to (“I don’t despise reli­gious peo­ple; I despise what they stand for.”), and my guess is that chang­ing per­cep­tions of agnos­tics, athe­ists and sec­u­lar­ists will need to wait for anoth­er day.

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 6 ) |

30 Renowned Writers Speaking About God & Reason

This past sum­mer, Jonathan Parara­jas­ing­ham, a neu­ro­sur­geon in Lon­don, cre­at­ed a mon­tage of 100 renowned aca­d­e­mics, most­ly all sci­en­tists, talk­ing about their thoughts on the exis­tence of God. (Find it in two parts here and here.) Now’s he back with a new video, 30 Renowned Writ­ers Speak­ing About God. It runs 25 min­utes, and it offers as much a cri­tique of ortho­dox reli­gious belief as it does a lit­er­ary trib­ute to human­ism and ratio­nal­ism. Isaac Asi­mov, Arthur C. Clarke, Salman Rushdie (who kind­ly tweet­ed us this week­end), Mar­garet Atwood, Philip Roth — they all make an appear­ance. The full list of writ­ers appears below the jump.

And, before we close, let me say this. When­ev­er we post videos like these, we get the ques­tion. Why the occa­sion­al focus on atheism/rationalism/humanism? And the sim­ple answer comes down to this: If you cov­er writ­ers, aca­d­e­mics and sci­en­tists, the think­ing skews in that direc­tion. Yes, there are excep­tions, but they are in short­er sup­ply. But if some­one pulls them togeth­er and makes a mon­tage, we’ll like­ly fea­ture it too. H/T RichardDawkins.net

Note: As you may have noticed, we have been expe­ri­enc­ing inter­mit­tent out­ages over the past cou­ple of days. Our host, Dreamhost, has been stum­bling more than we’d like. So we’re fig­ur­ing out alter­na­tives and hope­ful­ly mak­ing a move soon. Our apolo­gies for the incon­ve­nience!

(more…)

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 13 ) |

Alain de Botton Wants a Religion for Atheists: Introducing Atheism 2.0

Last sum­mer Alain de Bot­ton, one of the bet­ter pop­u­lar­iz­ers of phi­los­o­phy, appeared at TED­G­lob­al and called for a new kind of athe­ism. An Athe­ism 2.0. This revised athe­ism would let athe­ists deny a cre­ator and yet not for­sake all the oth­er good things reli­gion can offer — tra­di­tion, rit­u­al, com­mu­ni­ty, insights into liv­ing a good life, the abil­i­ty to expe­ri­ence tran­scen­dence, tak­ing part in insti­tu­tions that can change the world, and the rest.

What he’s describ­ing kind of sounds like what already hap­pens in the Uni­tar­i­an Church … or The School of Life, a Lon­don-based insti­tu­tion found­ed by de Bot­ton in 2008. The school offers cours­es “in the impor­tant ques­tions of every­day life” and also hosts Sun­day Ser­mons that fea­ture “mav­er­ick cul­tur­al fig­ures” talk­ing about impor­tant prin­ci­ples to live by. Click here and you can watch sev­er­al past ser­mons pre­sent­ed by actress Miran­da July, physi­cist Lawrence Krauss, author Rebec­ca Sol­nit, and Alain de Bot­ton him­self.

If Athe­ism 2.0 piques your inter­est, you’ll want to pre-order de Bot­ton’s soon-to-be-pub­lished book, Reli­gion for Athe­ists: A Non-Believ­er’s Guide to the Uses of Reli­gion.

Thanks to Elana for send­ing this our way.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Athe­ism: A Rough His­to­ry of Dis­be­lief, with Jonathan Miller

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 10 ) |

Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief, with Jonathan Miller

With the Sep­tem­ber 11, 2001 ter­ror­ist attacks and the emo­tion­al whiplash that fol­lowed, the monothe­is­tic reli­gions of the West took a more stri­dent­ly polit­i­cal turn. It was in this con­text that Jonathan Miller, the British the­atre and opera direc­tor, felt com­pelled to cre­ate a three-part doc­u­men­tary trac­ing the his­to­ry of reli­gious skep­ti­cism and dis­be­lief.

Broad­cast by the BBC in 2004 under the title, Athe­ism: A Rough His­to­ry of Dis­be­lief, the series was­n’t broad­cast by PBS in Amer­i­ca until 2007, and only after “Athe­ism” had been removed from the title and the word “rough” changed to “brief.”

“I’m rather reluc­tant to call myself an athe­ist,” Miller says at the out­set. “It’s only in the light of such cur­rent con­tro­ver­sies with regard to belief that I’ve found myself will­ing to explic­it­ly artic­u­late my dis­be­lief.”

Miller goes on to guide the view­er through the his­toric evo­lu­tion of reli­gious doubt, from the skep­ti­cism of Greek and Roman philoso­phers to the Deism of Enlight­en­ment intel­lec­tu­als and the emer­gence of explic­it athe­ism in the writ­ings of the 18th cen­tu­ry French aris­to­crat Paul-Hen­ri Thiry, the Baron d’Hol­bach, who wrote in his Sys­tème de la Nature:

If we go back to the begin­ning we shall find that igno­rance and fear cre­at­ed the gods; that fan­cy, enthu­si­asm, or deceit adorned or dis­fig­ured them; that weak­ness wor­ships them; that creduli­ty pre­serves them; and that cus­tom, respect and tyran­ny sup­port them in order to make the blind­ness of men serve its own inter­ests.

Miller also talks with a num­ber of well-known con­tem­po­rary athe­ists, includ­ing play­wright Arthur Miller, physi­cist Steven Wein­berg and philoso­pher Col­in McGinn. Episode One: Shad­ows of Doubt appears above, in its entire­ty, with the oth­er two episodes: “Noughts and Cross­es” and “The Final Hour.”

If you would like to sign up for Open Culture’s free email newslet­ter, please find it here. It’s a great way to see our new posts, all bun­dled in one email, each day.

If you would like to sup­port the mis­sion of Open Cul­ture, con­sid­er mak­ing a dona­tion to our site. It’s hard to rely 100% on ads, and your con­tri­bu­tions will help us con­tin­ue pro­vid­ing the best free cul­tur­al and edu­ca­tion­al mate­ri­als to learn­ers every­where. You can con­tribute through Pay­Pal, Patre­on, and Ven­mo (@openculture). Thanks!

Relat­ed Con­tent:

The Athe­ism Tapes Presents Lengthy Inter­views with Arthur Miller, Daniel Den­nett & Richard Dawkins About Reli­gion and Unbe­lief

Steve Mar­tin Writes Song for Hymn-Deprived Athe­ists

Athe­ist Stan­ford Biol­o­gist Robert Sapol­sky Explains How Reli­gious Beliefs Reduce Stress

Ayn Rand Argues That Believ­ing in God Is an Insult to Rea­son on The Phil Don­ahue Show (Cir­ca 1979)

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 18 ) |

Christopher Hitchens Gets Contrarian on Christmas from the Grave (Plus Some Tom Lehrer)

Back in 1959, Tom Lehrer, the Har­vard lec­tur­er and satirist, record­ed “A Christ­mas Car­ol” before a live audi­ence at the Sanders The­ater in Cam­bridge, Mass. The song, offer­ing an ear­ly com­men­tary on the com­mer­cial­ism of Christ­mas, pro­vides the jump­ing off point for Christo­pher Hitchens’ arti­cle “Forced Mer­ri­ment: The True Spir­it of Christ­mas,” which has been pub­lished posthu­mous­ly in this week­end’s Wall Street Jour­nal. Even from the grave, Hitchens goes on being Hitch: blunt, bound to make the major­i­ty bris­tle, but also brim­ming with some con­trar­i­an insights…

But the thing about the annu­al cul­ture war that would prob­a­bly most sur­prise those who want to “keep the Christ in Christ­mas” is this: The orig­i­nal Puri­tan Protes­tants regard­ed the whole enter­prise as blas­phe­mous. Under the rule of Oliv­er Cromwell in Eng­land, Christ­mas fes­tiv­i­ties were banned out­right. The same was true in some of the ear­ly Pil­grim set­tle­ments in North Amer­i­ca.

Last year I read a recent inter­view with the priest of one of the old­est Roman Catholic church­es in New York, locat­ed down­town and near Wall Street. Tak­ing a stand in favor of Imam Rauf’s “Ground Zero” project, he point­ed to some parish records show­ing hos­tile pick­et­ing of his church in the 18th cen­tu­ry. The pious pro­tes­tors had been voic­ing their sus­pi­cion that a pro­fane and Popish cer­e­mo­ni­al of “Christ Mass” was being con­duct­ed with­in.

and some humor.…

In their already dis­crepant accounts of the mirac­u­lous birth, the four gospels give us no clue as to what time of year—or even what year—it is sup­posed to have tak­en place. And thus the iconog­ra­phy of Christ­mas is ridicu­lous­ly mixed in with rein­deer, hol­ly, snow scenes and oth­er phe­nom­e­na pecu­liar to north­ern Euro­pean myth. (Three words for those who want to put the Christ back in Christ­mas: Jin­gle Bell Rock.) There used to be an urban leg­end about a Japan­ese depart­ment store that tried too hard to sym­bol­ize the Christ­mas spir­it, and to show itself acces­si­ble to West­ern vis­i­tors, by mount­ing a dis­play of a San­ta Claus fig­ure nailed to a cross. Unfound­ed as it turned out, this would­n’t have been off by much.

You can read Hitchens’ unabridged piece in WSJ here. H/T goes to @opedr

RIP Christopher Hitchens: Stephen Fry Pays Tribute, Hitch Rejects the Deathbed Conversion

18 months after being diag­nosed with oesophageal can­cer, the polem­i­cal writer Christo­pher Hitchens has died at the age of 62. His fans began to fear the worst last month when Hitchens, sud­den­ly hos­pi­tal­ized with pneu­mo­nia, could­n’t attend a wide­ly-pub­li­cized debate in Lon­don. The pro­mot­ers of the event, Intel­li­gence², quick­ly turned the debate into a cel­e­bra­tion of Hitchens’ life. Stephen Fry played host, and Richard Dawkins, Christo­pher Buck­ley, Salman Rushdie, Lewis Lapham, Mar­tin Amis, James Fen­ton and Sean Penn all paid trib­ute. Above, we’re high­light­ing the poignant video once again.

Also fit­ting­ly, we’re bring­ing back anoth­er clip that fea­tures Hitchens dis­cussing how his strug­gle with can­cer affect­ed his views on the ques­tion of an after­life. “I would say it frac­tion­al­ly increas­es my con­tempt for the false con­so­la­tion ele­ment of reli­gion and my dis­like for the dic­ta­to­r­i­al and total­i­tar­i­an part of it,” he respond­ed. “It’s con­sid­ered per­fect­ly nor­mal in this soci­ety to approach dying peo­ple who you don’t know but who are unbe­liev­ers and say, ‘Now are you gonna change your mind?’ That is con­sid­ered almost a polite ques­tion.” Dur­ing the event taped last Feb­ru­ary (watch the full pro­gram here), Hitchens made his views pret­ty clear: No deathbed con­ver­sion for me, thanks, but it was good of you to ask.

And final­ly we cap things off with a mon­tage of 22 com­ments from Christo­pher Hitchens. When you add them all up, you get some vin­tage Hitchens — every­thing that made him some­times loved, some­times hat­ed but always respect­ed.

If you have nev­er spent time read­ing Hitch, we’re going to rec­om­mend his last piece for Van­i­ty Fair — his reflec­tion on Niet­zsche’s famous line “What­ev­er doesn’t kill me makes me stronger.” It was pub­lished last week, and it’s quite the coda.

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 12 ) |

Christopher Hitchens: No Deathbed Conversion for Me, Thanks, But it was Good of You to Ask

Athe­ist Christo­pher Hitchens was asked ear­li­er this year how his strug­gle with can­cer has affect­ed his views on the ques­tion of an after­life. “I would say it frac­tion­al­ly increas­es my con­tempt for the false con­so­la­tion ele­ment of reli­gion and my dis­like for the dic­ta­to­r­i­al and total­i­tar­i­an part of it,” he respond­ed. “It’s con­sid­ered per­fect­ly nor­mal in this soci­ety to approach dying peo­ple who you don’t know but who are unbe­liev­ers and say, ‘Now are you gonna change your mind?’ That is con­sid­ered almost a polite ques­tion.”

Hitchens spoke (see above) dur­ing a debate on the ques­tion, “Is there an after­life,” with Sam Har­ris and Rab­bis David Wolpe and Bradley Shav­it Art­son at the Amer­i­can Jew­ish Uni­ver­si­ty in Los Ange­les on Feb­ru­ary 15. (You can watch the entire event here.) Hitchens’ views on the sub­ject have remained con­sis­tent over the years. “It’s a reli­gious fal­si­fi­ca­tion that peo­ple like myself scream for a priest at the end,” Hitchens said before he was diag­nosed with stage four esophageal can­cer in the sum­mer of 2010. “Most of us go to our end with dig­ni­ty.”

Hitchens writes mem­o­rably of one such fig­ure in his 2006 book, Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man: A Biog­ra­phy:

Paine’s clos­ing years, piti­ful as they were, con­tained one clos­ing tri­umph. He might have become a scare­crow-like fig­ure. He might have been forced to sub­sist on the char­i­ty of friends. He might have been denied the right to vote by a bul­ly­ing offi­cial, when pre­sent­ing him­self at the polling sta­tion, on the grounds that the author of Com­mon Sense was not a true Amer­i­can. But as the buz­zards began to cir­cle, he ral­lied one more time. It was wide­ly believed by the devout of those days that unbe­liev­ers would scream for a priest when their own death-beds loomed. Why this was thought to be valu­able pro­pa­gan­da it is impos­si­ble to say. Sure­ly the sob­bing of a human crea­ture in extrem­is is tes­ti­mo­ny not worth hav­ing, as well as tes­ti­mo­ny extract­ed by the most con­temptible means? Boswell had been to vis­it David Hume under these con­di­tions, because he had been reluc­tant to believe that the sto­icism of the old philoso­pher would hold up, and as a result we have one excel­lent account of the refusal of the intel­li­gence to yield to such moral black­mail. Our oth­er account comes from those who attend­ed Paine. Dying in ulcer­at­ed agony, he was imposed upon by two Pres­by­ter­ian min­is­ters who pushed past his house­keep­er and urged him to avoid damna­tion by accept­ing Jesus Christ. ‘Let me have none of your Popish stuff,’ Paine respond­ed. ‘Get away with you, good morn­ing, good morn­ing.’ The same demand was made of him as his eyes were clos­ing. ‘Do you wish to believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God?’ He answered quite dis­tinct­ly: ‘I have no wish to believe on that sub­ject.’ Thus he expired with his rea­son, and his rights, both still staunch­ly defend­ed until the very last.

via 3 Quarks Dai­ly

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Steve Mar­tin Writes Song for Hymn-Deprived Athe­ists

Christo­pher Hitchens Revis­es the Ten Com­mand­ments

Duelity: Creationist and Darwinist Origin Stories Animated

Pro­duced at the Van­cou­ver Film School, this split-screen ani­ma­tion tells the sto­ry of Earth’ s ori­gins from a cre­ation­ist and Darwinist/evolutionist point of view. To make things more inter­est­ing (spoil­er: stop read­ing now if you want to main­tain the ele­ment of sur­prise), the sci­en­tif­ic sto­ry is told using reli­gious lan­guage, where­as the Bib­li­cal ver­sion is told as if it were the sci­en­tif­ic one. The slight­ly con­fus­ing con­clu­sion (its’ a zinger) shows how the lan­guage we use to present ideas influ­ences their per­cep­tion. And the iron­ic use of info­graph­ics tops off this visu­al and lin­guis­tic exper­i­ment.

On the home­page of the project, you can watch the videos sep­a­rate­ly and down­load them. Also, the YouTube chan­nel of Van­cou­ver Film School is always worth a vis­it.

By pro­fes­sion, Matthias Rasch­er teach­es Eng­lish and His­to­ry at a High School in north­ern Bavaria, Ger­many. In his free time he scours the web for good links and posts the best finds on Twit­ter.

« Go BackMore in this category... »
Quantcast