(Babe) Copa America
For the next few weeks Venezuela is hosting the Copa America. The Copa America is South America’s most prestiges soccer tournament. Now, I suspect you find may soccer boring, and therefore, possess little to no interest in the teams and who wins.
So, I thought I’d bring to your attention another Copa America: Aida’s Babe Copa America. This one involves choosing the top “Babe” from each of the participating countries in this year’s Copa America. This should be a tournament worth your attention.
The champion of my Copa: Leonor Valera of Chile
Who’s yours?
The Queerness of Christianity (and America)
Have you noticed a certain queerness in criticisms of Christianity (and America)? Both, for example, are criticized for contradictory (or at least contrary) reasons. Consider the following statement from a recent article on anti-Americanism in Europe:
For us Germans, the Americans are either too fat or too obsessed with exercise, too prudish or too pornographic, too religious or too nihilistic, too isolationist or too imperialistic.”
The same kind of criticisms are made of Christianity. Consider a few thoughts via G. K. Chesterton:
No sooner had one rationalist demonstrated that it was too far to the east than another demonstrated with equal clearness that it was much too far to the west. No sooner had my indignation died down at its angular and aggressive squareness than I was called up again to notice and condemn its enervating and sensual roundness.
Again:
One accusation against Christianity was that it prevented men, by morbid tears and terrors, from seeking joy and liberty in the bossom of Nature. But another accusation was that it comforted men with a fictitious providence, and put them in a pink and white nursery.
And yet again:
The Gospel paradox about the other sheep, the fact that priests never fought, a hundred things made plausible the accusation that Christianity was an attempt to make a man too like a sheep. . . .I turned the next page in my agnostice manuel, and my brain turned upside down. . . .Christianity, it seemed, was the mother of wars.
What should we make of these kinds of criticisms? Christianity (and America), it seems, can be (and are) turned into whatever we hate most. This peculiarity, Chesterton argued, said something about Christianity. Suppose “we heard of an unknown man spoken of by many men.” And suppose that some men said he was too tall, while some said he was too short; and some said he was too thin, while others said he was too fat. One might think, argued Chesterton, that the unkown man was oddly shaped. However, there is another possibility. Chesterton:
He might be the right shape. Outrageously tall men might feel him to be short. Vey short men might feel him to be tall. . . .Perhaps (in short) this extraordinary thing is really the ordinary thing; at least the normal thing, the centre. Perhpas, after all, it is Christianity that is sane and all its critics that are mad – in various ways.
Perhaps Christianity (and America to a lesser degree) provoke anger at all points because they lie at the center? They are true, good, and beautiful? Whatever the case, it is certainly an odd thing.
Stephen Parise: Contra Austin Cline
I. The Claims
Austin Cline, in a recent article, has taken issue with one of my posts on atheism. Cline has “argued” that I unfairly divide all atheists into two “nice, neat groups”. Cline:
It’s curious, though, how Parise is able to determine that atheists fall into (at least) these two nice, neat groups and that one group has all the good qualities while the second has all the bad qualities.
The problem, writes Cline, is that I provide no examples, not even “even weak examples” of my claim. Further, Cline writes, this kind of categorization is “the method of thinking which lies behind prejudicial stereotypes and ultimately dehumanization.” In short, I’m accused of making:
nebulous assertions about vauge errors made by conveniently unnamed atheists
However, it’s not just the content of my post Cline finds problematic. Cline, it seems, has the ability to peer into the hearts of men. For he has seen fit to make personal judgments about me. I am not, according to Cline, interested in doing justice to atheism. Rather, I’m using philosophy to cover my personal prejudices. I’m really upset with criticism of conservatism. Cline writes:
Is there any chance that this is what the real problem is: criticism of conservativism and conservative religious belief.
Well, despite my inability to muster serious, sound arguments, and the problem with my personal prejudices, I will venture to differ with Cline’s assessment.
II. Problems: inaccuracies and confusion
Cline’s analysis is fraught with confusion and inaccuracy. First, I didn’t, in fact, argue all atheists fit into two nice, neat categories. I stated that there were at least two types of atheism. I acknowledge the existence of more than two kinds of atheist. In my post I focused on two types of atheism. So, it is inaccurate to say I acknowledge only two types of atheism.
However, Cline’s criticism of this point reveals a confusion. And it is this confusion that gives rise to his criticism. Cline asserts (but does not argue) that:
In principle, every object in the universe is unique and should be treated as different from everything else; in practice, that’s just not possible for our poor limited minds. We have to categorize and generalize just to get by in life.
But we don’t generalize, as Cline asserts, because of our poor, limited minds. Of course, every “thing” in the universe is unique. But it’s not a failure to perceive this uniqueness that prompts us to generalize, it’s because we do perceive it that we generalize. We don’t, for example, employ concepts like “man” “woman” and “science” because we don’t know how individual men, women, and disciplines differ. We use those concepts because there is something individual men, women, and disciplines have in common. The commonalities are as fascinating and mysterious as the differences. Perhaps this confusion is what lead Cline to write that:
there’s nothing about atheism itself which unites all atheists in any way
There’s nothing that unites them in any way? I take it all atheists argue either that they lack a belief in God, or that God doesn’t exist. Isn’t that what makes them atheists?
The point is that if Cline is confused about generalizations, then it may not necessarily be stereotypical and ultimately dehumanizing to generalize. What matters is whether or not the generalization is accurate.
III. Problems: another inaccuracy and a contradiction
Cline writes:
Is there any chance that Parise started out with a conception of what he didn’t like about some atheists and then worked backwards to find a way to categorize them in a manner that vindicate the atheists he liked while denouncing the one’s he didn’t? That sounds like a strong possibility. We should always be suspicious whenever a person finds a way to categorize others in a manner that concentrates all or most of the good in one group and all or most of the bad in another group.
Cline’s assertion contradicts itself. It is bad to categorize – to put all the good in one group, and all the bad in another group – unless, I suppose, the categories are “those who categorize” and “those who do not categorize”. Cline, in his condemnation of categorizing, categorizes. By Cline’s logic, we should be very suspicious of his argument – for he puts all or most of the good in one group (those who don’t categorize) and all or most of the bad in another group (those who do categorize).
His other claim is that I provide no examples, not even weak ones, to bolster my claims. This is wrong. I name both Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins (and I would add Christopher Hitchens) as examples of one kind of atheist, and Keith Burgess-Jackson, as an example of another kind of atheist. I did not cite Burgess-Jackson as an authority, as Cline claimed, but as an example. But if there is a criticism to be made of my post, then it is here. I didn’t cite the works of Harris or Dawkins as proof of my assertions. I assumed my readers would be familiar with their writings. I shouldn’t have done that – fair enough.
IV. Conclusion
When is an educator and informer of atheism, agnosticism, skepticism, philosophy and religion not an educator and informer of atheism, agnosticism, skepticism, philosophy, and religion? When they assume the title without being able to accurately summarize and represent another’s argument. The best educators will take the time to read and study another person’s position before they comment on it. They will strive to be accurate and charitable in their interpretations.
Then there are people who use “educational” websites to further their own agendas.