I’m glad the Globe and Mail fired Rick Salutin because we certainly need more of the risible god-bagging apologetics and whinging over the evils of ‘strident Atheists’.  Irshad Manji grapples with these great problems(?) with considerable aplomb as she is a card carrying member of the religiously addled, reality challenged sect.  Her first paragraph does incite some hope, maybe this piece will not be a festival of banal accommodationalist drivel.

“In this, the season of giving, I propose we give novelty a chance – novelty, that is, in the debate between atheists and people of faith.”

Ooh… so far so good…

“Let’s move beyond the stale polemics that insult everybody’s intelligence.”

*sigh* It is those humourless irascible Atheists and their tone!  Let us just be clear here about who has the problem and who does not.

Rational people inform their decisions based on evidence that is available to them.  Informing your decision making process on mythology and declared ‘truth’ is the path that wends distinctly away from any sort of rationally coherent underpinning.  Having a distinct preference for reality based decision making, as opposed to “my sky daddy says so”, is not a particularly strident position, but rather an overreaction on the part of the deluded when you point to their pet mythology and magic men and call ‘bullshit’.   Sorry believers, but without evidence it sounds like you are arguing for the existence Unicorns and Santa Claus.  Rational people find it hard to take mystical arguments like this very seriously.

We must soldier on though, and hit the low-points of this particular bit of whinging about the evils of atheism.

“I’m riveted by a new biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German Lutheran pastor who famously opposed the Nazi regime – and was hanged for his role in a plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler. Bonhoeffer grew up in a household that valued science, logic and independent thinking. A habit of asking questions helped him pierce Nazi orthodoxy early on, and his vascular faith motivated him to do something about it. Bottom line: His moral courage came from a combination of reason and religion.”

Citation needed.   Did his moral thinking explicitly come from a combination of reason and religion?   The qualities mentioned, valuing science, logic and independent thinking are atypical of those encouraged by religious institutions.  Of course, he could be the insider and saw religion for the hokey sham that it is and decided to rely on reason instead of magic to inform his decision making processes.

“So it’s shallow to suggest we must choose between God and progress.”

The world is 14 Billion(ish) years old.  The world is 6,000 years old.  One statement is based of fact, the other… well, not so much.  Is it important to note that even a little magic in one’s thought processes can have deleterious effects.  Ask those who lecture on the evils of ‘refined sugar‘ or those who believe you can make happy water; see what a little magic in your thinking can do for you?  So, the divide between rational and religious influenced thought is a little deeper than the “shallow” pond Manji suggests.

“But if it’s entertainment value we’re after, we should know that the “new” atheists are only rehashing what’s already been said umpteen times. In the late 1700s […]”

Unfortunately the delusion known as religion has formidable staying power, praying to the sky-daddy makes people feel good.  Furthermore, repeating a fact when faced with irrational nonsense is not necessarily a bad thing.  The religious bullshit has not changed over the centuries (more handwaving granted, but still no proof), so why should the rational response change?  Ahh, but instead of talking about how transparently false religion is, lets project the evil that religion is known for onto Atheism:

“[…] historian Edward Gibbons – a luminary of the British Enlightenment and a consummate skeptic – observed that the “bigotry” of the anti-God squad mimics the fanaticism of churchmen.”

Oh ho!  Checkmate Atheists!  Your religion dedication to rationality is just as bad as our belief in Jeebus (allah,etc, insert your fairytale here, not to mention our fallacious friend the Tu Quoque argument)!  I wonder when apologists will stop comparing non believers to the deluded when the real issue is the inherent irrationality of religious belief.

But apparently, I am being to harsh on Ms.Manji as she advocates a “different” debate.  It must be my stridency, inherent in Atheism, showing through.

“Today’s conversation can be different. In January of 2009, novelist Salman Rushdie and I had a public discussion in New York to mark the 20th anniversary of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomaini’s death warrant against him. Mr. Rushdie and I thoroughly agreed on the need to defend freedom of thought, conscience and expression.

Toward the end of our exchange, he took a jab at my belief in God. I chuckled and retorted that the existence of successful atheists like him is proof positive that a merciful God exists. Mr. Rushdie laughed affectionately. Clearly, this debate can be had with deep appreciation of the other.”

From xkcd

Wow.  Proof positive a merciful god exists.  Oh wait, no proof here, just anecdotal evidence that a noted Atheist when confronted with a dyed in the wool believer, just does not want to go there, again, because the bullshit is the same, just coming from a different mouth.  Dragging people up Mount Rationality is a difficult, often frustrating process and frankly, until people see the delusion for themselves it is often not worth a rational persons time and effort explaining that god, like unicorns and santa (most likely) do not exist.

“Here’s my humble contribution: It may be that atheists themselves are inadvertently affirming the existence of a loving God. Lao Tzu, the ancient Chinese sage, noted that a great leader makes his followers believe they’ve led themselves. In that sense, a scientist, humanist or atheist who chalks up all progress to the human mind could be showing what an empowering and effective leader God actually is.”

I just vomited up my corpus callosum and it is yelling at me for feeding it such inane batshittery.

It could be, also Ms.Manji, that these people inspired by Reason and the quest for knowledge did some remarkable things.  No god or magic required.  Of course you could defend your position on how awesome a leader god is by explaining how righteous and purposeful smallpox, AIDS, hell even malaria, are without resorting mysticism.  We’ll just leave the floor open for your response on that one Ms.Manji, but please watch your tone for stridency.

“No doubt, this idea will come off as insane to some. But if so, why is it crazy? As a person of faith, I’m used to being challenged by atheists – among them, Richard Dawkins, who heckled me from the audience when I spoke at Oxford University. “

Good on Dawkins for speaking up when you bring your edifice of irrationality to the table and attempt to pass it off as a notion that deserves credibility.  Magic and myth need to be called out each time they attempt to stick their head into goings on in the real word.  Hopefully Ms.Manji, you learned something from Dawkins’ line of questioning, although your Op-Ed suggests quite another conclusion.