Monday, 29 July 2013
Philosophy professor Dan Fincke on the errors atheists make when they imagine they have no bodies:
There's nothing inherently wrong, for Fincke, with atheists singing songs. Not singing songs, on the other hand, is often evidence of a philosophy deeply uncomfortable with human embodiment.
When confronted with claims about immaterial spiritual souls or spiritual lives or practices, the first mistake is to imply that people’s experiences that they call 'spiritual' are not 'real.' 'Spiritual' experiences are real events that happen in the real world. Superstitious reifications are just hastily (and with all sorts of cultural and religious encouragement) naively misinterpreting them as somehow evidence for something otherworldly or something which puts them in touch with otherworldly things. It is useless and sounds woefully psychologically ignorant to question whether they refer to something real when they talk about spiritual experiences. We do much better to engage them about what their real experience really indicates.
The parallel superstition among some atheists is a tendency to conceive of people as minds that respond to reason alone and that can only reason well if they are not being influenced bodily.Finke concludes that atheists -- and he counts himself in that number -- should evaluate "emotional mechanisms" based on end results, rather than rejecting such mechanisms and practices altogether.
There's nothing inherently wrong, for Fincke, with atheists singing songs. Not singing songs, on the other hand, is often evidence of a philosophy deeply uncomfortable with human embodiment.
Australia is pretty thoroughly secularized. Nearly a quarter of Australians say they are not religiously affiliated, about 70 percent say religion isn't important in their lives, and less than 10 percent are regular in church attendance, a number that's declining. More than 80 percent of Australians said the world would be better of without religion, according to one study, and another report found that half of those born between 1976 and 1990 have no belief in God.
Australia is irreligious, and has secularized pretty much exactly as one would expect if one held to the secularization thesis.
A new study on scientific literacy shows that some Australians struggle with the ideas of evolution, though. This shows it's not true that the United States is the only industrialized country where creationist ideas persist. It also raises questions about the relationship between religiousness and science education.
As Adam Laats writes, "Significant percentages of Aussies, for whatever reason, do not agree with fundamental tenets of mainstream science. Sorry, Bill Nye, but creationism is not 'unique' to the United States."
According to the study, more than 30 percent of Australians don't think evolution is currently occurring. Of that group, 9 percent said they don't believe in evolution, 10 percent they didn't believe evolution was happening now, and 12 weren't sure whether evolution was only historical or not. There are also 27 percent of Australians who think dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time.
The study doesn't do a good idea of contextualizing these survey responses. There have been occasional reports of creationism and Intelligent Design taught in Australian schools, but whether or not these poll's findings can be connected to committed anti-evolution thought or just generally to ignorance isn't clear.
The lack of knowledge wasn't just evolution specific. There were 42 percent of Australians -- and half of all women -- who could not correctly say how long it takes the earth to orbit the sun.
Australians still have a much higher rate of support for the scientific consensus than one finds in the US. But it seems scientific ignorance persists at significant rates regardless of religion's influence in society.
It's been a long, long time since any dominant religious group anywhere has opposed the heliocentric model of the solar system, for example, and yet in the late '90s Gallup found that 18 percent of Americans thought the sun revolved around the earth -- and 19 percent of British people thought that too, as did 16 percent of Germans. In each of the three countries, there were not-insignificant portions of people who didn't know what Nicholas Copernicus knew in 1543.
It's clearly true that sometimes, in some places, knowledge of science is retarded by religious influences. It turns out, though, that even when religion is marginal or irrelevant, scientific knowledge isn't universally accepted.
Australia is irreligious, and has secularized pretty much exactly as one would expect if one held to the secularization thesis.
A new study on scientific literacy shows that some Australians struggle with the ideas of evolution, though. This shows it's not true that the United States is the only industrialized country where creationist ideas persist. It also raises questions about the relationship between religiousness and science education.
As Adam Laats writes, "Significant percentages of Aussies, for whatever reason, do not agree with fundamental tenets of mainstream science. Sorry, Bill Nye, but creationism is not 'unique' to the United States."
According to the study, more than 30 percent of Australians don't think evolution is currently occurring. Of that group, 9 percent said they don't believe in evolution, 10 percent they didn't believe evolution was happening now, and 12 weren't sure whether evolution was only historical or not. There are also 27 percent of Australians who think dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time.
The study doesn't do a good idea of contextualizing these survey responses. There have been occasional reports of creationism and Intelligent Design taught in Australian schools, but whether or not these poll's findings can be connected to committed anti-evolution thought or just generally to ignorance isn't clear.
The lack of knowledge wasn't just evolution specific. There were 42 percent of Australians -- and half of all women -- who could not correctly say how long it takes the earth to orbit the sun.
Australians still have a much higher rate of support for the scientific consensus than one finds in the US. But it seems scientific ignorance persists at significant rates regardless of religion's influence in society.
It's been a long, long time since any dominant religious group anywhere has opposed the heliocentric model of the solar system, for example, and yet in the late '90s Gallup found that 18 percent of Americans thought the sun revolved around the earth -- and 19 percent of British people thought that too, as did 16 percent of Germans. In each of the three countries, there were not-insignificant portions of people who didn't know what Nicholas Copernicus knew in 1543.
It's clearly true that sometimes, in some places, knowledge of science is retarded by religious influences. It turns out, though, that even when religion is marginal or irrelevant, scientific knowledge isn't universally accepted.
Wednesday, 24 July 2013
Monday, 22 July 2013
Forty years after The Exorcist made $441 million and lodged itself in the American imagination, the latest cast-out-demons based-on-a-true-story film hit theaters this weekend. The writers and director are hoping the $20 million production called The Conjuring makes some money -- and gets some viewers seriously considering demonic realities.
"People should never be ignorant of demonic forces and think it can't happen to them," said Chad Hayes, one of the screenwriters.
Chad and his twin brother and co-writer Carey Hayes have been adamant about the connection between their faith and this horror film, a connection which has pretty seamlessly blended with some of the studios' promotional efforts. The film's distributor, New Line Cinema, has subcontracted with Grace Hill Media for a specific faith-market campaign. The company arranged advance screenings for faith groups, including groups of priests, and has made the writer-brothers and the real-life exorcists available to the religious press.
The people behind this film hope those who believe in demons go to theaters and watch. Chad Hayes, for example, said, "Men and women of faith should see this film because they will see the power that only God holds to overcome evil. They can be witnesses to that moment of darkness that only the power of God can defeat."
The people behind the film don't only want believers to go and see it, but one way to market it to believers it to talk about how the product will be powerful and especially spiritually useful for those who don't believe. This is part of why there's all this talk about the reality of demonic forces. It's aimed at those who like their scary narratives to teeter on the question, "is it real?," and also at those who think it is real and want to believe that such a film could transform the beliefs of others.
That evangelical message is clear enough that some reviewers are reacting to it. At Salon, the film has been dubbed "one of the cleverest and most effective right-wing Christian films of recent years," which is not framed as a compliment.
At a recent screening, the director reportedly spent some time trying to persuade incredulous critics of the film's serious intent. The final words on the screen, too, from one of the real-life exorcists involved in the real-life version of the film's fictionalized events, emphasize this point:
For one thing, there's a good number of them. There's not a lot of really solid information on exactly how many, but one poll reported that 41 percent of Americans agreed with the the idea that demons exist, and another, which just looked at self-identified Christians, put the number at 64 percent of Christians, which is about 48 percent of the general population. That works out to more than 150 million Americans as the potential market for this marketing campaign of this movie, plus, presumably, the people they know and think might be somewhere on the edge of possible belief.
For another thing, appealing to religious audiences has paid off in recent years. There are success stories inspiring this marketing drive: The Passion of the Christ, The Blind Side, Fireproof, and others. Add the successes of faith-"infused" TV shows that have fared so well lately, Duck Dynasty, The Bible, etc., and the people who decide what movies get made are going to pay attention. And they are: At this year's Annual Faith and Values Awards Gala and Report to the Entertainment Industry, a Hollywood affair celebrating films pitched as faith-friendly and making lots and lots of money for it, marketing strategists were saying they could sell anything that is faith friendly. It was reported that in the last 21 years the number of films classified as having "at least some Christian, redemptive content" has grown from about 10 percent of the movies produced to nearly 57 percent, but there is still demand for more.
It turns out religious right's efforts to demonstrate the economic strength of conservative Christians actually worked. If not with boycotts, then with theater tickets and big buckets of popcorn.
According to Carey Hayes, "the essence of this movie is, God wins."
One could say the same of The Exorcist, of course. That's what these movies do: God wins, demons are dramatized, some segment of the audience wonders if maybe that fictionally depicted reality is really real, and others say yes, yes!, and a bunch of money is made and more such stories are put into production.
The Conjuring continued that tradition this weekend, pulling in box office receipts worth $41.5 million, earning more than twice what it cost with just it's North American debut.
The people behind this film hope those who believe in demons go to theaters and watch. Chad Hayes, for example, said, "Men and women of faith should see this film because they will see the power that only God holds to overcome evil. They can be witnesses to that moment of darkness that only the power of God can defeat."
The people behind the film don't only want believers to go and see it, but one way to market it to believers it to talk about how the product will be powerful and especially spiritually useful for those who don't believe. This is part of why there's all this talk about the reality of demonic forces. It's aimed at those who like their scary narratives to teeter on the question, "is it real?," and also at those who think it is real and want to believe that such a film could transform the beliefs of others.
That evangelical message is clear enough that some reviewers are reacting to it. At Salon, the film has been dubbed "one of the cleverest and most effective right-wing Christian films of recent years," which is not framed as a compliment.
At a recent screening, the director reportedly spent some time trying to persuade incredulous critics of the film's serious intent. The final words on the screen, too, from one of the real-life exorcists involved in the real-life version of the film's fictionalized events, emphasize this point:
Diabolical forces are formidable. These forces are eternal and they exist today. The fairy tale is true. The devil exists. God exists. And for us, as people, our very destiny hinges upon which one we elect to follow.Whether or not they believe in The Conjuring, marketing a movie to people who believe in demons isn't a bad idea.
For one thing, there's a good number of them. There's not a lot of really solid information on exactly how many, but one poll reported that 41 percent of Americans agreed with the the idea that demons exist, and another, which just looked at self-identified Christians, put the number at 64 percent of Christians, which is about 48 percent of the general population. That works out to more than 150 million Americans as the potential market for this marketing campaign of this movie, plus, presumably, the people they know and think might be somewhere on the edge of possible belief.
For another thing, appealing to religious audiences has paid off in recent years. There are success stories inspiring this marketing drive: The Passion of the Christ, The Blind Side, Fireproof, and others. Add the successes of faith-"infused" TV shows that have fared so well lately, Duck Dynasty, The Bible, etc., and the people who decide what movies get made are going to pay attention. And they are: At this year's Annual Faith and Values Awards Gala and Report to the Entertainment Industry, a Hollywood affair celebrating films pitched as faith-friendly and making lots and lots of money for it, marketing strategists were saying they could sell anything that is faith friendly. It was reported that in the last 21 years the number of films classified as having "at least some Christian, redemptive content" has grown from about 10 percent of the movies produced to nearly 57 percent, but there is still demand for more.
It turns out religious right's efforts to demonstrate the economic strength of conservative Christians actually worked. If not with boycotts, then with theater tickets and big buckets of popcorn.
According to Carey Hayes, "the essence of this movie is, God wins."
One could say the same of The Exorcist, of course. That's what these movies do: God wins, demons are dramatized, some segment of the audience wonders if maybe that fictionally depicted reality is really real, and others say yes, yes!, and a bunch of money is made and more such stories are put into production.
The Conjuring continued that tradition this weekend, pulling in box office receipts worth $41.5 million, earning more than twice what it cost with just it's North American debut.
Thursday, 18 July 2013
Tuesday, 16 July 2013
A German homeschooling family seeking asylum in the United States will take its case to the Supreme Court, the Home School Legal Defense Assocation announced Monday.
A lower court ruled against Uwe and Hannalore Romeike in May. Their appeal for a re-hearing has now also been denied, leaving the Supreme Court as the family's last option in the US legal system. The federal court said there weren't grounds to re-hear the case, as the issues that the homeschooler's lawyers raised in the appeal had already been dealt with.
The lawyers defending the family disagree. They announced they will take the case to the Supreme Court because "we firmly believe that this family deserves the freedom that this country was founded on."
The lawyers defending the family disagree. They announced they will take the case to the Supreme Court because "we firmly believe that this family deserves the freedom that this country was founded on."
The Romeike's have become something of cause célèbre on the right. The case is seen as a defense of freedom and of parents' rights to educate their children. Legally, however, as the judge pointed out in the ruling rejecting the Romeike's claims, the case doesn't hinge on whether or not homeschooling is a right or a privilege. The legal question is whether or not homeschoolers in countries where homeschooling is illegal qualify for asylum in the United States, whether or not they should be considered a "particular social group" as defined by asylum law.
The Home School Legal Defense Association asked the Romeike's to come to the United States explicitly to challenge the law. The aim was to get homeschooling recognized as a grounds for asylum, and to put pressure on German courts and lawmakers, possibly embarrassing them, possibly stirring up some public sympathy for homeschoolers and getting the laws changed.
The organization has long lobbied for homeschoolers internationally, and helped organize a German counterpart to HSLDA in 2000. When homeschooling families lost high profile court cases in Germany in 2000 and in 2007, the American group worked to politically organize German homeschoolers, but also began looking for alternative defenses. It was in that context that the HSLDA approached the Romeike's with the idea of a legal battle in the US Federal Courts.
"We analyzed the legal battle for freedom in Germany and concluded that prospects were not promising," HSLDA lawyer Michael P. Donnelly wrote.
The Home School Legal Defense Association asked the Romeike's to come to the United States explicitly to challenge the law. The aim was to get homeschooling recognized as a grounds for asylum, and to put pressure on German courts and lawmakers, possibly embarrassing them, possibly stirring up some public sympathy for homeschoolers and getting the laws changed.
The organization has long lobbied for homeschoolers internationally, and helped organize a German counterpart to HSLDA in 2000. When homeschooling families lost high profile court cases in Germany in 2000 and in 2007, the American group worked to politically organize German homeschoolers, but also began looking for alternative defenses. It was in that context that the HSLDA approached the Romeike's with the idea of a legal battle in the US Federal Courts.
"We analyzed the legal battle for freedom in Germany and concluded that prospects were not promising," HSLDA lawyer Michael P. Donnelly wrote.
We knew that laws would have to be changed if there was to be freedom for German homeschoolers. This would require changing public opinion and getting the attention of legislators. Because there were so few homeschoolers in Germany, there was no way they could exert any kind of political influence. And in the face of the German Supreme Court decisions, we knew that officials would need heavy prompting to confront this issue.
In further developing the new strategy, Jim Mason, HSLDA Director of Litigation, suggested considering a political asylum case. He contacted former HSLDA Legal Assistant Will Humble, who was now actively practicing immigration law and who agreed to assist with the Romeike’s political asylum claim. Humble outlined the arguments that would have to be made for such a case, and HSLDA began to look for the right test case.
The first opportunity came in the form of a case that had started back in 2006 .... Our thought was that this test case, if successful, could pave the way for an American asylum claim as well as start the process for creating public awareness in Germany.
To date, this strategy hasn't been successful. The Romeike's case has received only the slightest media attention in Germany, and hasn't generated any groundswell of support for the country's few homeschoolers. The case was also not successful in court. In May, the judge ruled that the family had not met the legal burden of proving they were persecuted in Germany for being homeschoolers. He argued, further, that:
If the court declines to hear the case, the Romeike's will be forced to leave the country. They could resettle in one of the many Western European countries where homeschooling is allowed, including Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland.
The United States has not opened its doors to every victim of unfair treatment, even treatment that our laws do not allow. That the United States Constitution protects the rights of 'parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control' does not mean that a contrary law in another country establishes persecution on religious or any other protected ground [legal citations removed].The HSLDA will continue their fight, though. The deadline for an appeal to the Supreme Court is in October. Whether or not the court will hear the case is another question: only about 75 to 80 cases are heard annually out of the approximately 10,000 petitions.
If the court declines to hear the case, the Romeike's will be forced to leave the country. They could resettle in one of the many Western European countries where homeschooling is allowed, including Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
