It is somewhat comforting to live in Australia, where you can have an openly atheist broadcaster on 
National Radio, chatting with a neuroscientist who has written about 40 ridiculous scenarios for the afterlife, and not have a major uproar.
I managed to catch Tales from the Afterlife(click to got to podcast), a segment on Late Night Live where Australia’s grandaddy of an Atheist, Phillip Adams talks with David Eagleman author of Sum: Forty Tales from the Afterlives
Carl Hays of Booklist had this to say about the book
A slender volume of bite-size vignettes, Sum appears to be a whimsical novelty, amusing for idle perusal but quickly forgotten. In it, neuroscientist Eagleman offers 40 fates that may await us in the afterlife. A close reading of each carefully measured chapter provides an insight into human nature that is both poignant and sobering. In one afterlife, you relive all your experiences in carefully categorized groups: sleeping 30 years straight, sitting five months on the toilet, spending 200 days in the shower, and so forth. In another, you can be whatever you want, including a horse that forgets its original humanity. There are afterlives where you meet God, in one a God who endlessly reads Frankenstein, lamenting the tragic lot of creators; in another a God, female this time, in whose immense corpus earth is a mere cell. Eagleman’s engaging mixture of dark humor, witty quips, and unsettling observations about the human psyche should engage a readership extending from New Age buffs to amateur philosophers.
It was interesting and having caught only half of the show, I will need to download the podcast and listen again. One particular part of the conversation was a criticism of Dawkins and Hitchins as being, you guessed it- Militant. At one point Adams stated that “Dawkins would argue that it doesn’t matter what good a religious person does, they are doing for the wrong reasons”. I have to listen again in all seriousness because:
- I only expect this sort of comment from apologists and ignorant theists
- I think it mischaracterizes Dawkin’s position
Am I blinded? I am no Dawkins fanboy, but I haven’t read this sentiment expressed in his work or in his television productions.
Another interesting part of the conversation was Eagleman’s description of himself as a Possibilian.
Possibilans are those that celebrate the vastness of our ignorance, are unwilling to commit to any particular made-up story, and take pleasure in entertaining multiple hypotheses.
He seemed to be implying that he didn’t believe in a god(s) but that he was not as rigid as the so called New Atheists, that he sees science showing us how much more we don’t know and he likes entertaining possibilities. I don’t know that this is fundamentally different from Dawkins? Or if its anymore than just avoidance of the negative association of being called an Atheist.
Related posts:
- Atheists in the Mainstream Media This Sunday night will see Compass, the Australian National Broadcaster’s...
- “The Rise of Atheism” Australian Atheist Conference 2010 Atheist Alliance International and The Atheist Foundation of Australia are...
- The Atheists – A short review I managed to catch the program on Sunday night and...
Loading ...
Adams sometimes comes across as a very weak atheist, he occasionally seems to pander to the religious. I wonder if that is just his public face to avoid too much confrontation?
He is a bit of a fuddy duddy, but still I don't understand where he has picked up his view of Dawkins. Poor form from him if is just pandering to his guests on the show.
Phillip Adams is awesome, a bit of a fuddy duddy but a hilarious one. He is quite intelligent I think. Also who else loves Bruce Shapiro.
He is pretty good, which is why I am annoyed at this apparent slip:)
http://www.abc.net.au/compass/s2517600.htm
I have a lot of time for Adams as well and I regularly download his podcasts, although I am more endeared to his left wing views than to his atheism.
The link I copied above is to an ABC Compass program called The Athseists, which was aired in March 2009. Phillip is on it, as are others. In this program he expands on the reasons he says that Dawkins is "millitant". I think he means that Dawkins is going around trying to "convert" people to atheism and ridiculing those who are not otr refuse to be converted.
I must say that I think there is an element of truth here. To me Dawkins is the 7th day Adventist of Atheism.
Thanks for posting
Jorge
I find Dawkins to be outspoken and critical of religion. He argues his case, he defends science and he ridicules those who deserve it. If he were trying to run around and convert people Adams would be better off labeling him an evangelist. Militant brings an altogether different quality to the discussion. To me Militant raises a notion of violence or aggression. I think to call Dawkins a militant is an attempt to sideline his views, strident, out spoken yes, but I can't see Dawkins standing up to a stiff wind nor screaming at Christians from the picket lines:D
I have an issue with Dawkins' defining religion in general as child abuse – I have seen the results of child abuse, real child abuse. I think that grouping indoctrination in with this muddies the waters.
I wasn't aware of his views on Aboriginal religious views – are we talking about pre-colonial views or the post colonial hodgepodge of Lutheren/Fundamentalist Christianity and traditional views?
I share your suspicions, Sean. It increases the size of one's audience to bash Dawkins as militant and/or intolerant. It's a caricature for sure. One wonders if it's intentional or just intellectual laziness.
I do have a few issues with what Dawkins says about religion, mainly stemming from his use of the term "religion", the lack of clarification of the term (I know what he means but it's not obvious) and his occasional dismissal of certain religions based on caricature, when one can make valid criticisms without caricature. Worst example of the latter being his dismissal of the religious views of Aboriginal Australians, which is not wrong in being dismissive per se, but in being based entirely on a colonial (aka Christian) representation.
I suspect however that this is naive and has more to do with him being an ex-grammar school boy, than any malice, and much less to do with his general critique of religion.
Still doesn't lend credence to Adams' accusations.
I think that grouping indoctrination in with this muddies the waters.
Not sure about that. I mean the general, moderate upbringing with Sunday School, I get your point. Some of the ultra-conservative Churches can really mess kids up, especially when it comes to sexuality – all without molesting the kids.
In my period undercover with fundies, I saw some seriously messed up stuff that as messed up as it was (and I've seen real child abuse – heck I've done my manditory notification training a couple of times as well), it wasn't illegal (psychological child abuse that FAYS wouldn't invtervene in but has similar consequences to other abuse that they would). Of course, I'm not generalising the way Dawkins does.
Re: views on Aboriginal Australia. Basically it's the old narrative of "Dream Time" versus "The Dreaming" ("Dream Time" being a distortion to be more analagous to a 7-day creation period), claiming that Aborigines have a purely literal belief in the Rainbow Serpent (which while some do, not all do and not all have the Rainbow Serpent featuring with the same significance or even at all.)
It's the old school colonial false-anthropology that he's regurgitated uncritically. A false-anthropology that he didn't even need to use to make his point. Again, I think it's done in a naive way, but colonial depictions of indigenous populations aren't really something one should parse uncritically to begin with.
If you find the YouTube video where he talks about the great JuJu under the sea, you can see what I mean. I'll try and find it for you tomorrow.
I guess I look back at my upbringing as a catholic (albeit Catholicism in Central Australia – sometimes I think I might have received more religion if I had gone to a state school:) ) and can't honestly say that I was abused in any fashion. I guess the problem here is that Dawkins can be his own worst enemy in not being really specific or in painting religion to broadly. I believe he is specific when talking about the labeling of children as [insert religion] children. Perhaps it would be better if he pointed out actions that he deemed as child abuse – even then I hesitate. Perhaps my own upbringing biases my thinking here?
Thanks for the clarification on his thoughts about Aboriginal beliefs.
I think Dawkins's knowledge of theology is quite profound. I think his understanding of the contemporary history of fundamentalist movements is fairly limited, judging from what I've read of the God Delusion (he focuses too much on religious ephemera, like hell houses, for my taste. Though they are fascinating). Hitchens, on the other hand, has it all – a profound knowledge of theology, a quite serviceable knowledge of fundamentalist religious movements, and an above average understanding of science and higher criticism. I cringe every time I see a fundie try to debate with him. You know they're going to get beat down real good.
I don't know that I would want to have an in depth knowledge of the history of Fundamentalist movements if it means reading texts like Restoring the Foundations
Hmmm… couldn't find the video in question. Maybe my brain has conflated David Attenborough into the mix. I hate losing a source – I'm either going to have to find it or recant. Grrr…
That is frustrating. I have been pouring over wordpress/webdesigner sites for the last three nights and have taken to bookmarking them in two different browsers and on delicious just so I have a hope of finding them again:)
Agreed – Words are important – especially in Phillip Adams' business. Why say "militant" when you actually mean "belligerent"?
Still I am inclined to forgive Phillip this little "sin"
, as he is a nice old fellow. Phillip is openly atheist, but I think that above all he values tolerance. I think that this explains Phillip's stance on Dawkins and his friendship with many religious people.
Dawkins sees religion as the root of many evils and wants people to realise this and give up religion – NOW! Phillip agrees with the notion of religion being the root of many evils, but is willing to let people take their time about coming to this conclusion all on their own… I think that Phillip believes it is inebitable that they will do that – eventually.
He says as much in the Compass program I cited in my previous post.
You see I never felt that Dawkins was an evangelist for Atheism. I think I might have to review the God delusion again. I don't see him and Adams too differently. Is criticising religion and arguing a point really an attempt at conversion?
Can you give me a particular example of something Dawkins has said or done that you think demonstates his evangelism.
Ok – So I'm getting a little bit out of my depth here. I have not read anyhting that Dawkins has written, but I did see a documentary in which he is a presenter… must have been ABC TV.
"Evangelist" is your word. My word to describe how he came across is "belligerent" towards religious people, particularly the clergy of whichever religious faith he was "having a go" at at any particular time.
It's not so much that Dawkins is an evangelist for Atheism as much as that he is openly hostile to religious believers…. I guess that's what Adams means by Dawkins being "millitant".
Jorge,
I am enjoying this discussion. I think he is hostile to those who deserve it ie Ted Haggard, the Muslim concert interviwed in the Root of all Evil. I have watched a couple of interviews that he has had with clergy that are far more gentle, respectful. I don't think that Adams can really justify the Militant label.
Belligerent at times yes, respectful at others, depends entirely on who he is speaking to. To really justify the labelling of some one as militant, I think we need to have some sort of in your face street marching, on the front page, sign hoisting, rabble rouser.
I think that Adams, cuddly grandad that he is, was being just a little too flipant in this case:)
Ok, so I am going to have to concede defeat on this one! I have to say that calling Phillip Adams a "cuddly grandad" was your death blow…
I enjoyed the discussion too.
Jorge
Too quick in conceding defeat!
I just watched the Compass follow up video to "The Atheists", in which Dawkins is given the right of reply. These are Dawkins' opening remarks:
"I am pretty HOSTILE to organised religion. I'm pretty hostile to religion where it's rammed down people's throats." and "I VERY STRONGLY RESENT the indoctrination of children…"
So there you have it! straight out Dawkins' own mouth.
I must say though that he came across as a very nice, very rational fellow himself, and I have made it a point to read his book at the earliest opportunity…
A well manered militant atheist then
. Good find Jorge. Perhaps we should call him a hostile atheist 