Daily Archives: August 2, 2022

Ricky Gervais series After Life, which explores the concepts of life, death, grief and spirituality, saw its latest series air on Netflix earlier this year.On the podcast Under the Skin with Russell Brand, Gervais, who is a self-proclaimed atheist, said he sees the world with as much wonder as anyone who thinks God made it.

The comedian and actor spoke candidly with fellow entertainment professional and podcast host Russell Brand about spirituality, ranting on the bad perception atheists get.

He explained his view on religion saying: I say if you already know right from wrong you dont need the book.

Gervais, 61, also admitted he used to believe in God, but after considering the topic in depth, came to the conclusion: I feel I dont need a god.

However, Gervais revealed: The thing that I really object to is people assuming that you cant be a good person if you dont believe in a god.

There are good atheists and bad atheists, there are good Christians and bad Christians and a god has never changed that.

READ MORE:Gary Lineker forced to explain bra tweet about Lionesses as hes accused of sexism

You shouldnt judge people by their beliefs, you should judge them by their actual behaviour. I feel I dont need a structured guidebook outside of my own morality.

He insinuated this is one of the myths about atheism, explaining that by definition atheism is not the belief that there is no god, but rather theres no evidence of a greater being yet.

Deciphering this concept further Gervais reflected: If we agree that no one knows, were all atheists. Now, what do you think?

Believers will say I think there is a god and atheists say I dont think there is a god because I havent got any evidence yet.

As an outspoken atheist, Gervais revealed people have questioned him asking if evidence was found to prove God existed, would he become religious? He claims he would, but noted a potential issue.

He said: It wouldnt even be belief, it would be knowledge. But until we know, I dont want to live my life by a belief in something I have no evidence in, thats all.

Gervais went on to explain he understands and experiences all of the same concepts of wanting to understand the reasoning of life and connection to a greater power that religious people feel, but simply does it without the belief in god or gods.

Gervais claimed this was essentially spiritually, saying religion is something else.

DONT MISS:

He added: Someones belief in god has never bothered me, its what you do with it.

Its when theres suddenly an agenda that coincidentally favours the person.

Later in the podcast, the pair would discuss how this dogma of getting scripture to match ones argument has transcended religious conversations, now edging into politics and even pop culture.

Gervais explained this as potentially controversial situations where one side accidentally finds luckily, God agrees with them.

He continued: We know that everything thats ever started was written by, usually a man, with an agenda.

Its no coincidence that all those rules in the old testament sort of favour certain men.

Brand agreed with Gervais, saying: I really, firmly, deeply believe that spirituality is for me, not for me to tell other people: Oi I dont reckon you should be gay!.

Gervais has also recently made viral rounds on social media after his hometown named a garbage truck Ricky Gerwaste after him.

He tweeted an image of the truck in early July, captioning the post: Is there any greater honour than your hometown naming a garbage truck after you?

View post:

Ricky Gervais explained religious views in wake of After Life: 'I don't need a god' - Express

Colin Anderson took a break from cooking another community meal last week to sit near a garden and talk about food.

What, he was asked, would prompt a self-identified atheist/Buddhist to take to the kitchen at St. Paul's Hamline United Methodist church and make a vegan dinner for up to 200 people? Or to start a vegan food shelf at another church nearby?

It's about improving food security and empowering community by introducing locally sourced, sustainably raised food in neighborhoods with limited food options, he said. Through his Eureka Compass Vegan Food initiative, the Midway resident also hopes to launch a vegan grocery store.

"For us, it's all about community. It's all about nourishment, whether it be your body or your mind," Anderson said. "I do these events at these churches because the higher power that I believe in is what we can achieve if we all start working selflessly and together."

Eye On St. Paul recently sat down with Anderson, who partners with local vegan chefs Zachary Hurdle and John Stockman through the Twin Cities Vegan Chef Collective, to talk about his work to improve community health and unity, one meal at a time.

This interview has been edited for length.

Q: What are you hoping to accomplish with these dinners?

A: We need to get Minnesota to a point where Minnesota can feed Minnesota.

It's in response to two desecrating corruptions of our food system: We are burning our environment and resources that the future will rely on and shipping nourishment to places that already have nourishment. We also have food that is so poisonous that we have diet-related disease and illness.

We have put the most unhealthy food in communities that have the worst effects of environment. Of racism.

Q: Tell me a little about Eureka.

A: I started Eureka Compass Vegan Food in 2017 as a correction of what vegan food was becoming as it became mainstream heavily processed, deep-fried junk food. They make food in a lab, then they wrap it in plastic and ship it around the world. If you look at Impossible Burger, it's literally genetically modified yeast that eats soy, which is just more mono-crop agriculture.

Q: It sounds like you're not just promoting vegan, but recognizable, sustainable, locally grown food.

A: Yeah. We're talking full-scope veganism. [For this meal] I biked to the farmers market on my cargo bike. I brought my own bags and my own box. Then I biked back here, put the food in the fridge. Nothing in plastic. Plastics manufacturing pollutes the environment, kills people every day. It's hard to remove ourselves from it, but if we're going to be full-scale vegan, we need to acknowledge that. We need to say, "That's not vegan."

And when I go to the farmers market, I look to buy the last of something, say the last of the cauliflower or the last of the red potatoes.

Q: Why?

A: There's an emotional aspect when you're vending something. And an efficiency. I have four small heads of cauliflower left. Well, that's kind of a nuisance. Now, they're able to consolidate.

Q: I imagine it feels good for them to sell out too.

A: Yes, yes! Too often, we refuse to acknowledge that is a human being right there. But that person standing there, at their table at the farmers market, if I can give that little victory, that's solidarity. That's community.

Q: What are you hoping people get besides nourishment?

A: That they see it. At each community dinner, the recipes are never repeated. If you want to know how I made that, I'll tell you. There are people who send me an e-mail later on, saying, "What was this? Because this is amazing." And I say here, this is how you do it.

I have a friend [a vegan chef and spoken word poet] who said, "We would rather witness a sermon than hear a sermon." You want people to eat vegan food? Serve them vegan food.

Q: Have you started a vegan food shelf?

A: Yes. Thursday [July 28], we will do the first all-vegan food shelf from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. at Zion Lutheran Church, 1697 Lafond, in connection with Arts on Lafond. We hope to get the support to do this every Thursday.

Q: You're spending a lot of your own money to buy food you're giving away. Why?

A: I work with creative food people [such as Co-op Partners Warehouse]. I'm spending $1,300 on an order of local produce I'm self-funding this until I can't anymore.

Why? Because I want them to be sustainable too. We get $356 a month from 56 patrons. But if we had 2,000 patrons contributing $2 a month? We could do this every week. We're not asking for donations. This isn't charity. This is solidarity.

Q: How do you keep from being discouraged?

A: I've been discouraged. I have terrible moments of frustration. To sit there and you can see 400 people on LinkedIn, or 1,000 people on Instagram, saw that post and not a single one of them clicked that [sponsor] link?

But I've already succeeded. The people who I get the privilege to be around are phenomenal. It's the feeling I get [when] somebody comes in and says, "Not only is this the best meal we've had all week, but my family, we needed this."

Continued here:

Meet the vegan chef who wants to make St. Paul healthier, one meal at a time - Star Tribune

Joe Rogan is a stand-up comedian, podcast host, and UFC commentator who has never held back from sharing his thoughts, no matter how divisive they might be.

This was amply illustrated during the COVID-19 pandemic when Rogan resisted the mainstream medias narrative and, in the process, polarised audiences.

Francis Foster and Konstantin Kisin, hosts of the British podcast TRIGGERnometry, were interviewed by UFC commentator Joe Rogan in episode 1848 of his hugely popular podcast, The Joe Rogan Experience. Rogan brought up the Catholic church and the fact that no one challenged the Vatican while talking about issues that people in the US and the UK rebelled about:

The outrage is not balanced what about the Catholic church? Why isnt everybody really freaking about I was just in Italy, and one of the things thats nuts is the Vatican is a country. Its a country filled with pedophiles. Its a country filled with pedophiles and stolen art. Its a small like 100 acre country inside of a city filled with pedophiles.

The guests on Rogans show noted that while such remarks would need to be supported by evidence in the UK due to libel laws, free speech is unlimited in America. This could be demonstrated, Joe Rogan retorted. According to a BBC article, an investigation concluded that since 1950, clerical personnel in the French Catholic Church had assaulted approximately 216,000 minors, primarily males.

Its important to note that Pope Francis changed the rules of the Roman Catholic Church in 2021 to forbid child sexual assault.

Rogan has largely regarded himself as an atheist despite being raised in a Roman Catholic family. The podcaster discussed atheists in an appearance on the Hotboxin with Mike Tyson podcast and remarked that they might mistake God for other things:

Thats what a lot of people believe the problem is. Its that a lot of people dont have God and they substitute God for other things that mimic the same kind of control that religion has. And ideologies are one of those things.

However, it should be noted that Rogan has nothing against atheists, spirituality, or even the idea of religion. He enjoys analysing all angles of a subject and making observations, describing things as he sees them.

Below, you can see Joe Rogan on Mike Tysons podcast:

In a previous video, Rogan was shown discussing his understanding of religion while criticising others who seemed to believe that their faith was the only way to live.

View the video below:

Also Read:Khamzat Chimaev promises to eat Nate Diaz for breakfast in their upcoming fight,

Link:

"The Vatican is a country filled with pedophiles" - Joe Rogan wonders why there isn't a public uproar against... - The Sportsrush

Richard C, 60, East Sussex

Occupation Cleric, broadcaster, writer and Communard (retired)

Voting record Always Labour. I was a party member for a while. I rejoined to vote for Keir; I rather like Keir

Amuse bouche Richard skydives. On his first tandem freefall, jumping from a plane at 10,000ft, he asked the instructor what was the worst thing that could happen. He said: Fuck it up completely and kill us both!

Occupation Evolutionary biologist, author, atheist

Voting record Lib Dem. To begin with it was because I liked the Oxford MP Evan Harris, one of the few scientists in parliament, and very intelligent. In recent elections I have just been passionately anti-Brexit

Amuse bouche Richard plays the EWI (pronounced ee-wee), which stands for electronic wind instrument. It looks like a clarinet, but can sound like anything that has been programmed into it trumpet, tuba, cello, accordion, panpipes

RC I grew up in a world of Christian values; I was a chorister as a kid.

RD I was too.

RC I was singing the music of the Anglican choral tradition.

RD As was I.

RC But I was an atheist from the age of eight, unshakably certain that the universe was a material phenomenon.

RD That is unusual in an eight-year-old. What led you to that?

RC My grandfathers death. I remember hearing people say well-intentioned phrases about him having gone to a better place, but I couldnt get past the idea of him decomposing in a grave it just seemed to me that was what was going on.

RD Do you think he is in a better place now?

RC Yes, as well as decomposing. Once I got to the other side of accepting faith then all sorts of possibilities opened up. The idea that we can endure in some way after the death of our material selves I find that captivating.

RD Captivating, but is it realistic? The brain has come into existence as a result of millions of years of evolution, presumably acquiring what we think of as consciousness. Why would you think that something that has come into being through evolution goes on when the brain decays?

RC At the end of my 20s, HIV took out about a third of my circle. I wanted to connect with that feeling from when I was a kid of being in chapel and loving the music.

RD Your conversion to Christianity came about because of HIV deaths?

RC Thats what got me through the door: the turmoil and devastation and thinking: where do I go with this?

RD You needed somewhere to go and the material world didnt provide the consolation you needed, so you became a believer.

RC I suppose I did get consolation, but much more than that it challenged me fundamentally about the world. It was so extraordinarily rich and surprising and counterintuitive. And I started to read the Bible seriously.

RD What about miracles, water into wine, walking on water, things like that? I presume you believe in that.

RC Highly unlikely scenarios, and in my own experience I have never come across something inexplicably supernatural. But accepting the incarnation is the big one. If God does that, God could do anything; thats the key for me.

RD I can appreciate the message in the same way I can appreciate a novel where I dont believe in the characters but nevertheless can empathise with them and love them. I dont understand why you take the gospels seriously because scholars dont.

RC Plenty of scholars do. The gospels are very complicated, there are all sorts of things going on in them some of it is eyewitness account, memory, oral tradition; some of it is theological. Its very challenging sometimes, but its worth it because of the fruits, because of the wonderful stuff that continues to captivate me and motivate me.

Sign up to our Inside Saturday newsletter for an exclusive behind-the-scenes look at the making of the magazines biggest features, as well as a curated list of our weekly highlights.

RD Is the wonderful stuff an aesthetic thing?

RC Some of it, but its more about the way it makes people feel fully alive, what it does to people and for people, and Im sure a Muslim or a Jew or an atheist would be able to give you examples of that according to their own light.

RD I get that every day, from music, and the work that I do in science, from the beautiful world we live in. Part of that beauty is the fact that it is explicable, that what looks overwhelmingly like the artifice of a master creator you can actually explain, starting from simply beginning without the need for intervention from design.

RC We live in a world where Darwin seems to provide such a powerful and elegant and persuasive account of the origins of life. I dont find anything in that that I would have to surrender in order to make a commitment.

RD Youre the kind of vicar who is much harder to argue with because thats a reasonable point.

RC Im fascinated by Mendel, who was in both camps, I guess, in that he was a theologian and an abbot. He exercised pastoral responsibility in his community, but he was also an extraordinarily significant person in the development of our understanding of biology. Did you know Janek played the organ at his funeral?

RD I did not. Have you visited his monastery?

RC I have not.

RD I have. The library contains his copy of On the Origin of Species with underlined passages. Its pretty clear he read it. It also has a remarkable collection of English schoolboy fiction Percy F Westerman and Biggles.

RD When I did Desert Island Discs one of the things I chose was Mache Dich, Mein Herze from Bachs St Matthew Passion. Sue Lawley, who was doing it at the time, couldnt understand. Its just sublime music.

RC I suppose I want to alight on sublime Richard.

RD I dont know what the dictionary definition is; youre probably one up on me there. Bach was a genius. When there was some talk about what to send out into space as a sort of advertisement for humanity, one scientist, I forget who, suggested the complete works of Bach, but then said, but that would be boasting.

RC Indeed. And on every manuscript I believe Bach wrote for the greater glory of God.

RC I think there is this idea in our public discourse that the force of your opinion and the force of your feeling and the passionate adherence to a belief is what validates it, and I dont think thats true. Id much rather talk something through, look at inconsistencies and incongruences.

RD What is difficult arguing with Richard is he is not swayed by factual evidence; it is feeling that matters. Feelings are important, but they dont tell us what is true.

The Rev Richard Coles Murder Before Evensong is published by Orionat 16.99. To support the Guardian and Observer, order your copy at guardianbookshop.com. Delivery charges may apply. Richard and Richard ate at the Colony Grill, London.

Want to meet someone from across the divide? Find out how to take part

Continued here:

Rev Richard Coles and Richard Dawkins dine across the divide: The problem is hes not swayed by evidence but by feeling - The Guardian

Image credit: Tom Brown, via Flickr (cropped).

In arecent post,atheist biologistJerry Coynetakes issue with a commenter who asserts that God exists in the same sort of way mathematics exists. Heres the analogy the commenter offered,as quoted by Coyne:

Think of numbers for example, or mathematical equations, these are metaphysical things, that have not been created, however were discovered. The number 7 was the number 7 before anything at all came into existence. This is also true concerning the nature of God. He is not some material being that has come into existence, he is like a number that has always existed, (and by the way nobody will deny this logic with the number, however when someone mentions God a problem occurs).

Coyne who as you might guess is unimpressed by this approach to demonstrating Gods existence, replies:

The problem is that we can manipulate numbers and use them to arrive at truths, while we cant do the same with our conception of God, which remains a Platonic ideal. The only way to manipulate this Platonic God is to answer detractors that demand evidence by saying, Give me evidence that the number 7 actually exists as an empirical entity.

Although its clear that this kind of god does not correspond in any way to the theistic God believed by many faiths, including Abrahamic ones, its a conception of God thats been confected simply to avoid the questions What was there before God? and Who created God? It finesses the question by assertion that God is like the number 7 to mathematical realists. But in fact it does make an assertion about God: that he has an objective reality, which is why he resembles numbers to mathematical realists. Just as mathematical realists cant prove that numbers are actual entities existing out there, so Defender cant prove that God is an actual entity existing somewhere.

The commenter did not intend to prove Gods existence using mathematics. He merely pointed out that Gods existence is analogous, in limited ways, to the existence of numbers they, like God, are immaterial, real, and eternal. Which, of course, is true. And Coyne will have none of it.

There is, in fact, a classical proof of Gods existence that uses universal concepts such as mathematics, proposed most prominently by St. Augustine(354430 CE) of Hippo in the 4thcentury AD. Its sometime called theAugustinian Proof. I find it quite compelling and it goes like this:

Two kinds of things exist in the natural world: particulars and universals. Particulars are specific material things we know by our senses a rock, a tree, my neighbor Joe, etc. Universals are abstract concepts that we know in the sense that we can contemplate them and talk about them geology, botany, humanity, etc. But we cannot know any of these abstractions by our senses alone. We know abstractions by our intellect, which is our capacity for abstract thought.

Mathematics is an archetype of universals take, for example, the set of natural numbers. It includes all counting numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 and so on. There has been some debate among philosophers and mathematicians about the reality of numbers (i.e., do they exist in a separate Platonic realm, or only in the human mind, or do they have no existence at all in other words, are they are merely words?). This is a profound question, but the view that natural numbers (and other universals) do exist in reality in some fashion is very hard to deny.

For example, consider the formation of our solar system. It formed around one sun, not two or three or a million suns and it formed before there was any human mind to count the suns. But it is surely just as true that our solar system had one sun a billion years ago as it is true now. So the number1really exists in some fashion independent of the human mind. The same could be said of any number. For example, we know the ratios of many physical constants of the universe that have existed since the Big Bang, and because these ratios are real (we can measure them) then the numbers the ratios represent are real.

So how could numbers exist in reality, independent of the human mind?Platoproposed a realm of Forms in which universals exist, and in which our concepts participate. There are notorious problems with Platos concept of the realm of Forms (philosopherEdward Feserhas agood discussionof this). But it seems undeniable that universals (such as numbers) do really exist in some real sense.

The solution proposed by Augustine (and many other philosophers and theologians, most notablyGottfried Wilhelm Leibniz) is calledscholastic realism.Scholastic realism posits thatGods Mindis the Platonic realm of Forms. Augustine proposed that universals such as numbers, mathematics in general, propositions, logic, necessities, and possibilities exist in the Divine Intellect, which is infinite and eternal.

Whats remarkable about the reality of universals as proof for Gods existence is that it points in a simple and clear way to some of Gods attributes, such as infinity, eternity, and omnipotence.

Read the rest at Mind Matters News, published by Discovery Institutes Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence.

See the original post:

Mathematics and the God Hypothesis - Discovery Institute

Photo: Statue of Charles Bradlaugh, Northampton, England, by en:User:Cj1340, CC BY-SA 3.0 , via Wikimedia Commons.

One unwelcome result of the publishing success of theOrigin of Speciesfor Darwin was that its author had come to appear to some militant secularists as the unofficial patron saint of their own cause. The predominantly working-class radical movement simply styled Secularism, which had its origins in earlier decades of the 19th century, had been gathering steady momentum since the early 1850s.1On one occasion in the late 1870s two of its leading lights, Charles Bradlaugh (pictured above, the first atheist member of the British parliament) and his associate Dr. Edward Aveling, a young biology professor, came to solicit the by now venerable Darwins support for their cause. Darwin was never less than polite to both, having extended to them the invitation to join him at his country home at Down House, but finally felt obliged to turn down both mens requests that he endorse their enterprise.2In contradistinction to the era following the authors death, when persons can at will arrogate to themselves the Darwinian name in order to push their own interpretations and agendas, Darwin did at least in his own lifetime have the chance to turn down the self-interested appeals to him made by more aggressive secularists (Bradlaugh was a burly London East Ender who rather relished his frequent skirmishes with the police authorities).

Darwins reasons for refusing to lend the two petitioners his intellectual patronage were various. He maintained to the end of his days a residue of his earlier Christian faith and in later years was still apt to call himself a theist. He continued to harbor a nagging suspicion that there might be, in Thomas Huxleys phrase, a wider teleology in natures processes far exceeding the naturalistic bounds of natural selection. Furthermore, on purely ethical grounds he felt that people should not be bludgeoned into changing their ideas. Also, in a kind of not in front of the servants reflex characteristic of the English upper classes (a sentiment which persisted right up the notorious trial ofLady Chatterleys Loverin the early 1960s) he felt that ordinary people might not yet be ready to hear the revolutionary truth of natural selection. Here, noted James Moore, spoke the parish naturalist seeking not to disturb the social equilibrium.3

In that regard, his anxieties were not entirely misplaced, for grassroots secularism had been closely linked with political radicalism ever since Tom PainesThe Rights of Man(1791-2) had laced ideals of political emancipation with extended critiques of Biblical anomalies worthy of the German Higher Criticism (except that Paines criticisms were couched in a rather more defamatory linguistic register). Paine, later to be driven into exile, was widely seen as a public enemy who had defended not only the French Revolution but also the American Revolution which only a century earlier had deprived Britain of its most valued overseas colony. The conservative bourgeois Darwin was then understandably wary of having his name linked with persons potentially capable of political insurrection.

The arresting historical vignette of Darwins fraught meeting with Bradlaugh and Aveling at his country retreat would doubtless make for a good TV docudrama, but of far greater significance historically is the fact that this single episode shines a light on wider societal trends not always sufficiently heeded in discussing the reception of Darwinism, namely, those associated with the already well-established British secularist movement.

In examining the subject of Darwins philosophical precursors, much is conventionally made of two poems originally conceived about a decade before the publication of theOrigin of Species, namely, Matthew Arnolds poem, Dover Beach, where Arnold imagined the melancholy withdrawal of the tide of (Christian) faith, and that of the poet laureate, Alfred, Lord Tennysons In Memoriam, where grief for a deceased friend is broadened in scope to encompass the theme of the Victorian crisis of faith in a broader perspective. Such fine-feeling products of literary high culture are rightly adduced as important adumbrations of that greater loss of faith to be induced by peoples later acquaintance with Darwins work. Yet it should also be pointed out that other, more important harbingers of future events were in a sense hiding in plain sight (from many modern historical accounts, at any rate) in the thought and writings of denizens of less exalted echelons of society, as Timothy Larsen makes clear in hisCrisis of Doubt: Honest Faith in Nineteenth-Century England(Oxford: OUP, 2006, reprinted 2013), a work to which I will make frequent reference in what follows.

As Larsen documents, there had already been an atheistic newspaper in circulation from the early 1840s calledThe Oracleof Reasonstaffed by several transmutationists who accepted many pre-Darwinian speculations about evolution long before Darwin came on to the scene and even before the publication of that work widely seen as a prelude to DarwinsOrigin of Species, Robert ChamberssVestiges of the Natural History of Creationof 1844. There was also a weekly penny periodical,The Plain Speaker, which ran for a short time in 1849, plus a whole host of secular societies nationwide. One of the secularists chronicled by Larsen, the indefatigable John Henry Gordon, is on record as presenting papers in 1861 to secularist societies in Leeds, Bramley (Greater Leeds area), and at a south London branch in 1862.

The movement was then not just a metropolitan phenomenon, and reference was routinely made to the Northern circuit of speaking engagements arranged for speakers.In the heyday of the Industrial Revolution, Britain was considerably less London-centric than is the case today and it was widely acknowledged that most important working-class movements and initiatives had originated and become widely diffused over what are now somewhat ruefully referred to as the old industrial heartlands (the equivalent of the American Rust Belt).

John Gordon and other speakers at such events were exceptionally well informed across a whole range of disciplines. Adrian Desmond pointed out some decades ago in hisPolitics of Evolutionthat many new ideas in this period were typically introduced not by conservative Oxbridge dons but by medical and scientific radicals. As Larsen remarks with regard to another prolific speaker, Thomas Cooper, if in 1850 any Britons wished to have a serious encounter with the latest modern Biblical criticism, they would have been better off going to hear Cooper lecture than attending any British university.4This was an era in whichformalhigher education was the preserve of privilege and wealth, an exclusion which, however, spurred many enquiring minds to alternative, autodidactic expedients.

Although Darwin ostensibly provided a better explanation of evolutionary developments than predecessors in the form of what he touted as thevera causaof natural selection, in reality his ideas were no more extreme than ones long in circulation in the radical press and aired at the secularists public meetings. The English upper classs virtual monopoly on higher education proved no impassable barrier to enquiring minds with access to public libraries and the pooling of collective knowledge facilitated by local learned societies. Many radicals had absorbed ideas from theSystem of Natureof the French materialistphilosopheBaron dHolbach (translated into English in 1797), and Erasmus Darwins ideas of evolution had been more or less common knowledge since the end of the 18th century.

The relative chronology is important here because the so-called plebeian writers and speakers were well ahead of the curve in their readiness to accept and promote advanced forms of intellectual speculation. An illuminating example of this chronological priority, discussed by Larsen, concerns the loss of faith suffered by Sir Leslie Stephen in the 1860s when he was no longer able to accept as literal truth the Biblical account of the flood and Noahs Ark.5Remarks Larsen,

From the perspective of plebeian radicals, what is surprising about this [loss of faith] is not the critique [of the Bible] but rather the late date. One could have gone to a freethinking hall decades earlier and heard a careful catalogue of reasons why the account of the flood, on a standard, literalist reading, could not be squared with what was known of geology, and how it was filled with a wide range of absurdities.6

The above chronology of events shows clearly that the plebeians skepticism about the truth of Biblical revelation must have begun some decades before the publication of theOrigin. For such radicals, theOriginmust have represented not so much a surprised Aha! moment as a more confirmatory Aha I TOLD you so! In other words, they will have welcomed theOriginas scientificvindicationof a religious skepticism they had come to by a different route. Even if, like Thomas Huxley, one did not at the time think that the theory of natural selection made sense in purely scientific terms, it would certainly have provided many people with a very convenient confirmation of their disbelief (provided of course they were willing to abstain from questioning Darwins scientific postulates too closely!). The radicals must then have viewed the publication of theOriginas something of a very welcomedeus ex machinain that here was Darwin wheeling out unheralded support for their cause, support which they could not have anticipated receiving in their wildest dreams before 1859. Arguably and somewhat perversely, Darwins most noteworthy contribution to what may be termed the forward march of ideas may be viewed as having been not so much to biology (the first reviewers were almost universally scathing) but to the cause of secularism. This of course was an unintended consequence and an unwanted achievement which we know from the riven state of Darwins mind in later age that he will have found deeply uncongenial.

Tomorrow, Darwin, Group Think, and Confirmation Bias.

The rest is here:

Darwin and the British Secularist Tradition - Discovery Institute

There can be no doubt about it: Religion, especially Christianity while still powerful in American culture is in decline. Fewer than half of Americans even belong to a churchor other house of worship. Rates of church attendance are in a freefall, as younger Americans would rather do anything with their precious free time than go to church. As religion researcher Ryan Burge recently tweeted, "Among those born in the early 1930s, 60% attend church weekly. 17% never attend. Among those born in the early 1950s, 32% attend weekly. 29% never attend. Among those born in the early 1990s, 18% attend weekly. 42% never attend."

In response to Americans losing interest in faith, Republicans are in a full-blown panic, lashing out and accusing everyone else liberals, schools, immigrants, pop culture, you name it for this shift in religious sentiment. Worse, more are advocating the use of force to counter this decline. If people don't want religion, well, too bad. More Republicans are arguing that Christianity should not be optional First Amendment be damned.

"There's also growing hostility to religion," Justice Samuel Alito recently whined, in response to criticism of recent Supreme Court decisions meant to foist fundamentalist beliefs on non-believers, particularly the overturn of Roe v. Wade.

Republicans are justifying this turn towards compelled religious performance by whining about the empty pews in their church.

As Jack Jenkins of Religion News Service reported, increasing numbers of Republicans are ignoring the plain text of the First Amendment which says the government shall "make no law respecting an establishment of religion" in favor of the tortured myth that there's no separation of church and state. FormerOhio treasurer and failed Senate candidate Josh Mandel, Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado and, most troublingly, Justice Neil Gorsuch have all dismissed the idea that such a separation is mandated by the Constitution.

Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.

Christian nationalism, the idea both that the U.S. should be an explicitly Christian nation and that the laws should enforce fundamentalist Christian beliefs, used to be an unthinkable idea in American politics. Now it'snormal among the Trumpist branch of the GOP. As Heather "Digby" Parton writes, the GOP candidate in Pennsylvania's gubernatorial race, Doug Mastriano, barely hides his Christian nationalist views. Instead, he pals around with Gab CEOAndrew Torba, who openly says things like, "We don't want people who are atheists. We don't want people who are Jewish," because this is supposedly "an explicitly Christian country."

And, of course, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia has made this crystal clear, recently declaring:"We should be Christian nationalists."

This term, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a high school football coach who wants to lead Christian prayers from the 50-yard line during games, which is a direct reversal of decades of jurisprudence against coerced religious displays in public schools. Gorsuch defended the ruling by claiming that the prayer was merely a private act, despite being held in public and done in a way to make players feel they would be penalized for not joining. But right-wing groups understand fully that the ruling was meant as an open invitation to forced Christian prayer in schools. As the Washington Post reportedthis week, "activists are preparing to push religious worship into public schools nationwide." Your kid may be Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist or otherwise non-Christian, but too bad. They better recite the Lord's Prayer in class or risk being punished or ostracized.

Since the churches won't reform to be more egalitarian and pro-science, they find that these younger people are walking away altogether.

As blogger Roy Edroso documents, Republicans are justifying this turn towards compelled religious performance by whining about the empty pews in their church. He points to an op-ed by David Marcus at Fox News in which Marcus complains about declining faith and argues that the recent Supreme Court ruling will turn things around. "[I]t will be a new day forprayer in public schools. And God will operate a bit more openly," Marcus gushes.

Mandated faith is morally reprehensible and in direct violation of human rights. But it's also wrong to pin this decline in religious fervor to laws and customs protecting religious minorities from such coercion. On the contrary, if Republicans want to know who is to blame for young people abandoning the church in droves, they should look in the mirror.

Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.

As Robert Jones of thePublic Religion Research Institute told Salon in 2017, there's "a culture clash between particularly conservative white churches and denominations and younger Americans" over issues like science, education, and gender equality. Younger people brought up in these churches increasingly reject the sexism, homophobia, and anti-science views of their elders. Since the churches won't reform to be more egalitarian and pro-science, they find that these younger people are walking away altogether.

These trends will likely only accelerate in the wake of the Roe overturn, especially as Republicans grow more fanatical in their efforts to punish Americans for having sex. All but eight Republicans in the House voted againstthe legal right to use contraception. Fewer than a quarter of them voted to support same-sex marriage rights. Both of these rights are wildly popular. Eighty-four percent of Americans believe in the right to use contraception (and over 99% of those who have had heterosexual sex have used it). Over 70% of Americans believe in the right to same-sex marriage.

The more both Republicans and the Christian establishment reject these basic rights, the more they can expect to be rejected themselves, especially by younger people.

"[T]hese days it seems the people most likely to identify themselves as Christians tend to be Republicans as well the most vicious, hateful,un-Christian sons of bitches you'd ever want to meet," Edroso writes. Sure, some people respond by seeking liberal churches. But it's simpler and easier to just give up on being a Christian altogether, to drop all that baggage.

As an atheist myself, I really don't care if large numbers of people give up religion. On the contrary, it seems like a sensible choice to me. But if Republicans don't like people losing faith, well, they need to admit they did this to themselves. If they'd moderated their views and made their churches more tolerant and welcoming places, more people would be interested in attending. And all this talk of forced prayer and Christian nationalism isn't going to help matters, but will instead make ordinary people hate them even more. As with the GOP-led book bans only leading more kids to read the forbidden books, Republican attempts to foist their beliefs on others only causes more backlash against Christianity itself.

More:

The backlash to Christianity: Republicans are now panicked but they only have themselves to blame - Salon

Shiromani Akali Dal's (Amritsar) Simranjit Singh Mann asked for the removal of Bhagat Singhs portrait from the museum at the Darbar Sahib, calling him a terrorist, and sent shockwaves through the political landscape of Punjab.

However, this is not the first time that he has raised this demand, but the shock value this time is higher given that now he is a Member of Parliament from the Sangrur Lok Sabha seat.

Criticism has come from every party, with people asking him to stop insulting the image of Bhagat Singh and his role in the freedom struggle.

What is interesting though is the silence of the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) on the entire matter. The youth wing of Manns SAD(A) has actually shared a letter with the SGPC to support their demand.

In this letter, Bhagat Singh claimed that he was an atheist. That is definitely true; in fact, one of his most famous essays, Why I am an Atheist is a major lighthouse for the Marxists of India despite the fact that Bhagat Singh definitely was not one.

The argument that SAD(A) youth wing has given is that by displaying the photograph of an atheist in the Central Sikh Museum, the SGPC was promoting idolatry under the influence of Hindutva ideology which was not only against the Sikh culture, traditions and ideology but also against maryada (Sikh code of religious conduct).

It is indeed ironic given how only Bhagat Singhs photo is seen as supporting idolatry but not those of the likes of terrorist Balwinder Jatana.

Outside of the national glare, there has been a lot of politics around Bhagat Singh and his identity in Punjab. Questions are raised on his faith, especially by Sikh extremists, who quote his essay on why he was an atheist. To quote from the relevant part:

The truth is a little more complicated of course, and points to a past that was ruptured by the communal politics of Punjab. Bhagat Singh was born in a Sikh family, but that family was associated with the Arya Samaj. It was an era that was marked by a fading syncretism between Hinduism and Sikhism.

Today, such has been the wish of those who want to appropriate Bhagat Singh for themselves, be it Akali Dal or the Aam Aadmi Party, that they have always tried to portray him with a turban. This, when among the grand total of four photos of him, there is just one where he wears a turban - as a child.

For the record, the way the Sikh panthic leadership treated him should be stated as well. Here is what Manjit Singh GK said in 2016, when protesting against the Bhagat Singh statue in Delhi Assembly not having a turban:

Bhagat Singhs Stance on the Supposed Language Issue

That Bhagat Singh was wise beyond his years was reflected in many of his writings, whether one agreed with them or not. One such piece was an essay that he had written on the issue of the Punjabi language.

This essay is a bulwark against the toxic politics that the Akalis played in the post-independence era to hide their own communal agenda. It is thus, a reminder of an inconvenient truth for them.

The essay, which is available easily for all to read, had highlighted how the Punjabi language had become mired in communal problems. Some context to this essay must be provided of course.

In 1923, the Punjab Hindi Sahitya Sammelan had organised an essay competition. The theme was The Problem of Punjab's Language and Script. The General Secretary of Sahitya Sammelan, Shri Bhim Sen Vidyalankar had immensely liked Bhagat Singhs writing on the subject.

Bhagat Singh won a prize of Rs 50 for his essay and subsequently, it was published in Hindi Sandesh on 28 February 1933. While writing a controversial take, Bhagat Singh had written:

In this essay, however, was also the seed of syncretism:

In fact, Bhagat Singh had advocated for the adoption of Mahatma Hansrajs formula of a standard Hindi script, and identified how language differences had assumed communal colours in Punjab:

Discomfort Around Hindu Leaders Of The Time

Another uncomfortable topic for many politicians in contemporary Punjab has been the fact that Bhagat Singh murdered a police official of British origin, J P Saunders, to avenge Lala Lajpat Rais death, and Lala ji was associated with the Hindu Mahasabha.

Having suffered grievously from the lathi-charge during the protests against the Simon Commission, Lala ji had passed away soon after. The pamphlet released by the Hindustan Socialist Republican Army (HRSA) soon after the death of Saunders was in fact titled J.P. Sunders is dead; Lala Lajpat Rai is avenged, making the reasons amply clear.

However, the views of Sikh extremists about Lala Lajpat Rai today range from dismissive to downright vulgar. Questions on his martyrdom, and comments about him being a British stooge remain a part of mainstream discourse.

Several claims are made about Lala Lajpat Rai being a coward, who did not participate fully in the Pagdi Sambhal movement against oppressive British taxes on agriculturists alongside Sardar Ajit Singh, Bhagats uncle.

But that is not all.

In 2010, famous singer Babbu Mann, in a concert in the United Kingdom, had claimed that freedom fighter Lala Lajpat Rai did not die of cane blows but of a heart attack many months later.

This claim was later attributed to a book called Sachi Sakhi by Kapur Singh, who had been a civil servant under the British but went on to play a major role in Sikh politics with the Akali Dal in the future. What is ironic is that in the same book Kapur Singh had this to say about the incident:

Incidentally, this man had also said the following about Hindus in the Parliament in 1960:

This not only shows the attitude towards Hindus, but also bares open the truth of the Punjabi Suba movement. Incidentally, Lala Lajpat Rai had been associated with the Hindu Mahasabha in an era when there were fierce debates on the question of the status of Sikhs as a separate religion or a sect of Hindus.

At that time, the Hindu Mahasabha had in fact conducted a meeting in Punjab chaired by a Sikh to underscore the point.

Bhagat Singhs association with Veer Savarkar has emerged as a problematic point in recent times for many Punjabi politicians. Author Vikram Sampath had recently pointed out that in an article "Vishwa Prem" published twice in Matwala of 15 and 22 November 1926, Bhagat Singh spoke of Savarkar's tender heart despite being a revolutionary. Sampath quoted the following:

Savarkar had been extremely appreciative of the Sikh community, and had called them the very embodiment of Hindus, classifying them as that. That very point has been a bone of contention throughout, with the mainstream view being that we are not Hindus.

Bhagat Singhs legacy will remain contested, and his ideas debated. But it is not in the least surprising that we have people like Simranjit Singh Mann claiming what they do - that Bhagat Singh was a terrorist because he had also killed a Sikh constable Channan Singh alongside Saunder. As if the terrorists who are being glorified did not kill any.

Also Read: Portrait Of Former Punjab CM's Assassin Inside Golden Temple Complex: When Will SGPC Speak About Sikh Victims Of Khalistani Terror?

Read the original:

Punjab: Why Panthic Politics Has Never Been Comfortable With The Legacy Of Bhagat Singh - Swarajya

In a recent statement, the incoming European Union ambassador to the Peoples Republic of China (PRC), Jorge Toledo Albinana, said that the EU believes that Taiwan is part of China. He said Europe supports Taiwans peaceful unification with the PRC and not Taiwanese independence.

The PRC is ruled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), an atheist Marxist-Leninist regime that exercises total control over all aspects of the state and society in China. Taiwan is a fully independent and sovereign country that has never been part of the territory ruled by the authorities in Beijing. Unlike PRC nationals, Taiwanese citizens exercise popular sovereignty and have the right to self-determination. In official settings, Taiwan is called the Republic of China (ROC, Taiwan).

Ambassador Albinanas remarks were notable because the term he used, peaceful unification, is a CCP euphemism that refers to the subversion and coerced annexation of Taiwans ROC government. Its a seemingly benign phrase that, in reality, describes the destruction of a nation-state that is ranked among the top ten democracies in the world.

The PRC claims all of Taiwans territory and has been conducting a global campaign to isolate and weaken the country, laying the groundwork for a future takeover that would likely involve a mix of clandestine operations and overt military attacks.

Experts believe it is unlikely that Taipei will capitulate to Beijings demands, a view backed by polling data. On March 15, 2022, a Taiwanese public opinion poll found that 70.2 percent of respondents were willing to go to war in defense of Taiwan.

Another poll found that over 60 percent of Taiwanese between ages 20-39 said they were willing to go to the battlefield if China attacked. The same poll showed that 72 percent of respondents between the ages of 40-49 said they would fight.

The PRC is engaged in the largest peacetime military buildup undertaken by any country in over a century. Beijing now has the largest army, navy, and theater missile force in the world along with a rapidly growing nuclear arsenal capable of intercontinental strikes. Chinese military officers writing in authoritative documents describe the United States as their main enemy and portray the conquest of Taiwan as their number one mission.

Chinas ruler, Chairman Xi Jinping (), has said that his government aims to export its totalitarian model abroad and achieve what he calls world socialism and international communism. World socialism is a concept that envisions the overthrow of all liberal democratic governments and the formation of an integrated system of one-party dictatorships under Beijings control. Xi calls this process the construction of a community of common destiny for all mankind and the construction of a shared future for all mankind.

According to Xi, the violent socialist phase in humanitys political development would be followed by a borderless utopia: international communism. Since 2020, new textbooks have been published by the CCPs Central Party School and the Central Propaganda Department on Xi Jinpings personal ideology. Some texts suggest Xi believes his goals could be realized in the next three decades.

Analysts cannot measure the degree to which Xi and other CCP elites believe in the radical ideas they publicly espouse. It may be the case that Chinese officials view ideology as an instrument for accruing greater levels of state control and international power. But according to their own words, Chinas ruling class is driven by an irrational and regressive dogma that rejects science, reason, humanism, and universal values.

The US and PRC are locked in a war of ideas, and the outcome will hinge, in part, on the future of Taiwan. However, the US government continues to support the legitimacy of the PRC (China), while consciously undermining the legitimacy of the ROC (Taiwan). An example of this could be seen on July 21, 2022, when President Joe Biden publicly discouraged Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi from taking a long-planned trip to visit Taiwan. President Biden said, The military thinks its not a good idea right now.

In October 2021, over 150 Chinese warplanes, including a significant number of nuclear-capable bombers, conducted a threatening exercise inside Taiwans air defense identification zone. President Biden refrained from calling President Tsai Ing-wen () to express support and solidarity. Instead, he requested a call with Chairman Xi, and the two held a 3.5-hour virtual summit.

To date, President Biden has not called, met with, or emailed Taiwans president. While the Biden administration has hailed bilateral relations as rock solid, little movement has occurred to make progress on building closer US-Taiwan relations.

Absent real policy changes in Washington, Chinese military operations could fundamentally transform the security situation in the Taiwan Strait. As such, the US and Taiwan should consider integrating their forces into future joint training and operational readiness exercises. Both sides should consider how to safely conduct coalition operations, something they are currently unprepared to do without a significant risk of friendly fire.

The US government should give careful consideration to the benefits of establishing a significant presence of Special Operation Forces and Marines in Taiwan for training, advisory, and liaison missions. They could serve as a strategic trip-wire, signaling American resolve in the face of military coercion.

Ship visits, joint Taiwan Strait patrols, and routine senior leader delegations from Washington to Taiwan are additional low cost and high impact options that are available to deter CCP aggression, bolster Taiwans defense, and enhance prospects for peace.

While sometimes overlooked, the survival and success of Taiwans democracy is of vital importance to American efforts to stop the spread of illiberal forces around the world.

Ian Easton is a senior director at the Project 2049 Institute.

Comments will be moderated. Keep comments relevant to the article. Remarks containing abusive and obscene language, personal attacks of any kind or promotion will be removed and the user banned. Final decision will be at the discretion of the Taipei Times.

View original post here:

Ian Easton On Taiwan: Why Taiwan matters in the US-PRC war of ideas -

If a zombie uprising were to take place tomorrow, Emily Aboud wouldnt mind one bit. The fear of a zombie is only if my lineage has stolen something from their lineage, she shrugs nonchalantly. They wouldnt be coming for me.

Aboud, who uses she/they pronouns, is a Trinidadian playwright, director and drag king. Her latest play, Bogeyman, explores the question of what we fear and why. Its story is rooted in the history of the 1791 Haitian revolution, when the people overthrew the French colony to free themselves from enslavement. Nobody knows about the uprising, she says, and I want them to know.

Unlike in British schools, Abouds Trinidadian education taught the importance of the Haitian revolution. This was a story of the underdogs winning. But the spiritual aspect of the event was missing. At her Catholic state school (she is now a raging atheist) she was never told that the uprising is thought to have started with a Vodou ceremony in Haitis Bois Caman, the alligator forest. Theres a whole wealth of community and spirituality that made this revolution happen, Aboud says, and we didnt learn any of that because its considered demonic. She wonders about the narrative she and her classmates were told about Vodou, the same one that proliferates around the world about the much-misunderstood religion. Is it considered demonic because its what defeated the oppressor?

Growing up in Trinidad, Aboud attended Lilliput theatre, a drama group that has been running since 1975. Aboud is kinetic when she speaks, and never more so than when shes talking about this group, which ingrained in her a total belief in the power of community. Its the greatest thing on the whole planet. I genuinely think that getting people together to talk and make stories together saves the world. This training, which she then took on to student theatre at the University of Edinburgh, informs her process in the rehearsal room now, where she prefers to write, discuss and devise with cast and crew, before going back to writing again. She has just been shortlisted for 2022s JMK award, an annual prize given to visionary young directors.

Soon heading to the Edinburgh fringe, Bogeyman sits somewhere between ghost story and thriller. I dont want to do a jump scare, and Im not into blood and guts, Aboud says. I dont want to traumatise the people Im trying to empower. She is far more interested in the origins of fear. There is a PhD to be written on the Haitian uprising and horror. Zombie itself is a Haitian word, she points out, with roots in Haitian folklore and the injustices of slavery.

By veering between 18th-century Haiti and modern-day London, Bogeyman explores how many modern fears are steeped in the continuing legacies of racism and empire. In discussions with her cast, they have shared feelings of living in a haunted city. Looking at the Tate Modern, the Bank of England they are built from money from enslavement, she says. I cant even watch Downton Abbey. I just want to burn it all down.

For Aboud, the revolution is an inspiration, but also a warning. In order to become independent, Haiti was made to repay the French for their loss of property. This debt, paid off in 1947, amounted to billions in todays money, and has prevented the country from becoming economically stable. The oppressed did win, Aboud says drily, but theyve been punished ever since.

So Bogeyman must be a celebration as well as a mourning. This double-edged approach was evident in her previous show, Splintered, which at once cheered Trinidads creation of carnival and the events embrace of queerness, and lamented the homophobia and misogyny many have to face in the rest of the year. I think you need to have a sense of cynicism, Aboud says of her feelings around Caribbean culture. Nothing is black and white. Its layered and complex. Thats why Aboud called her theatre company Lagahoo, after the shapeshifter from Caribbean folklore. Being allowed to be two things at once is really important to the work that I make.

Navigating the historical legacy of the Haitian revolution and the ripples of empire in present-day life, Bogeyman encapsulates Abouds desire to use storytelling as a tool for empowerment and understanding. We are trudging along to fascism right here in the UK, she says, her voice a blend of despair and disgust. I feel really hopeless about that all the time. For me, the Haitian revolution is an amazing inspiration. They literally abolished enslavement, on one of the most profitable colonies in the new world. Aboud wants this story to serve as a reminder. We can get rid of the oppressor. It has been done.

Bogeyman is at Pleasance Dome, Edinburgh, 3-29 August.

Read the original here:

Emily Aboud on Bogeyman: I dont want to traumatise the people Im trying to empower - The Guardian