Category Archives: Atheism

Lead instructor at the Islamic Education and Research Academy, Subboor Ahmad, explains the epistemological conflicts between atheism, feminism and Darwinism.

As youre here

5Pillars have one humble request from you

Thousands of Muslims around the world visit our website for news every day. Due to the unfortunate reality of covering Muslim-related news in a heightened Islamophobic environment, our advertising and fundraising revenues have decreased significantly.

5Pillars is editorially and financially independent, with no sectarian or political allegiance to any particular group or movement. Our journalism has been exclusively grassroots focussed and our sole purpose is to defend Islam and Muslims in the media.

This makes us unique in comparison to other online Muslim media outlets who are neither independently regulated by a reputable body nor are they managed by qualified journalists.

Our journalism takes time, money and effort to deliver. But we do it because we believe we have a duty to Allah (swt).

You may not agree or like everything we publish. However, which other Muslim news site that is run by experienced journalists will take on the responsibility of being a shield for Islam and Muslims in the media?

If you follow 5Pillars, and you understand its importance in todays climate, then please support usfor as little as 5 a month, it only takes a minute to make a donation. Jazakallah khayran.

Our beloved Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said:The best deeds are those done regularly, even if they are small.[Ibn Majah]

Original post:
VIDEO: The Unholy Trinity Atheism, Feminism and Darwinism - 5Pillars

On 2 March 1901, during the full moon festival at Rangoons Shwedagon pagoda, the Buddhist monk U Dhammaloka confronted an off-duty colonial policeman and ordered him to take off his shoes. Burmese pagodas are stupas, containing relics of the Buddha, so wearing shoes on them (as white colonials did) was a serious mark of disrespect. Choosing his target well, Dhammaloka engaged in an act of non-violent resistance that provoked a local political crisis but also launched shoes as an issue that would become central to later Burmese nationalism until 1919. The shoe controversy made respect for Buddhism a challenge to racial hierarchies and colonial power.

Religion and race also came together in the monks bare feet. Born Laurence Carroll in Ireland, he had crossed America as a hobo and sailed two oceans before converting to Buddhism and ordaining in Rangoon in 1900. Yet Europeans still expected him to wear shoes, a key marker of racial difference intended to buttress colonial power. Going nativeincluding abandoning European dresswas not only part of his required clothing as abhikkhubut marked his defection from this symbolic racial order. So too, of course, did his ritual subordination to an Asian hierarchy and a non-Christian religion in a world where empire increasingly justified itself at home by its capacity to bring the Christian gospel to the heathen masses.

Echoing traditionalist Burmese views, which saw the British defeat of the Burmese monarchy as a sign of the decline of Buddhism, Dhammaloka would build his career as an anti-colonial celebrity activist around opposition to what he called the Bible, the whiskey bottle and the Gatling gun missionary Christianity, cultural destruction (given Buddhisms opposition to alcohol) and military conquest. If his bare white feet undermined the racial hierarchies of empire, his monks tonsure challenged the military and the missionary.

Dhammaloka brought together the persona of the Irish rebel with the developing figure of the activist Buddhist monk, in a life that continually challenged power. We know of five different aliases but little of the 25-year gap in his biography before 1900, during which he learned the skills of effective activism in one or another of the radical movements of late nineteenth-century America: freethought (atheism), labour organising, Irish republicanism, socialism, or anarchism. We find him under police and intelligence surveillance and put on trial for sedition. He seemingly dies at least twice.

Dhammaloka brought a distinctive Irish sensibility to his anti-colonialism. As the movement for Catholic emancipation had shown, if empires support for its own religion overstepped the markas on the Shwedagon in 1901rebels could use local religion as a force for resistance, which the colonial power could not be seen to tread too heavily upon. Dhammaloka pioneered this form of symbolic confrontation in Burma, for Buddhism rather than for Catholicism; but the arguments he used against missionary Christianity were not traditional Buddhist ones but those of western freethinkers, published in huge numbers by his Buddhist Tract Society. Convicted for sedition for a version of his slogan about the Bible, the bottle and the Gatling gun, Dhammaloka danced out of reach and continued his provocative challenge to power.

Dhammalokas dramatic life helps us understand how people used religion to engage with vast processes of change. Within a generation of his disappearance, popular movements had swept the British empire out of Asia, in many cases replacing it with nation-states founded on an ethno-religious basis. Yet before Irish independence, the pan-Asian Buddhist revival contained many imagined futures, and many different actors. Burmese peasants and Sri Lankan villagers flocked to Dhammalokas sermons, but his Buddhist projects also involved a Singapore Chinese businessman and a Shan chieftain. We find him based in monasteries of the Dawei ethnic minority in three countries and part of Japanese elite projects for international Buddhist networking. He ran Buddhist schools in Singapore and Thailand and was also active in India, Bangladesh, China, Australia, and present-day Malaysia.

All of this reflected the deeper ethnic complexity and transnationalism of a world of port cities, migrant labourers, trading diasporas, and poor whites. It was a sort of plebeian cosmopolitanism in which the Chinese, Indian, and Burmese bazaars of Rangoon closed down in support of an Irish ex-sailor gone native, who drew on the radical literature of American and British atheism to challenge imperial Christianity on behalf of Burmese Buddhists. If this story was lost for a century because it did not fit with mono-ethnic accounts of nationhood (and sanitised accounts of western Buddhism), it now offers us a window onto these wider currents that would help to bring about the end of empire and the rise of todays global Buddhism.

Featured Image Credit: Shwedagon Pagoda via Wikimedia Commons

Read more here:
Why an Irish Buddhist resisted empire in Burma - OUPblog

That's the question I debate with David Kris and Nick Weaver in this episode, as we explore the ways in which governments are using location data to fight the covid-19 virus. Phone location data is being used both to enforce quarantines and to track contacts with infected people. It's useful for both, but Nick thinks the second application may not really be ready for a year too late for this outbreak.

Our interview is with Jason Healey, who has a long history with Cyber Command and a deep recent oeuvre of academic commentary on cyberconflict. Jay explains Cyber Command's doctrine of "persistent engagement" and "defending forward" in words that I finally understand. It makes sense in terms of Cyber Command's aspirations as well as the limitations it labored under in the Obama administration, but I wonder if in the end it will be different from "deterrence through having the best offense." Nothing wrong with that, in my view as long as you have the best offense by a long shot, something that is by no means proven.

We return to the news to discover the whole idea of sunsets for national security laws looking dumber than it did when it first saw the light of day (which is saying something). Several important FISA authorities have expired, Matthew Heiman reports. That's thanks to Sens. Rand Paul and Mike Lee, I might add (though Nick blames President Trump, who certainly put his boot in too). Both House and Senate passed measures to keep FISA authorities alive, but the measures were completely different and out of sync. Maybe the House will fix the problem this week, but only by extending the deadline for a couple of months. Because of course by then we'll be rested and ready, in the middle of a contagion and a Presidential campaign, for a debate over Sen. Paul's proposal to make it harder to wiretap and prosecute Americans who spy for foreign governments.

Maybe before they did all that naming and shaming of Russian government hackers, federal prosecutors should have worked on their aiming: The US Justice Department has now dropped Robert Mueller's charges against a sponsor of Russian electoral interference, Matthew tells us. We explore two fever-dream narratives that the whole prosecution was part of a witch hunt and that the Attorney General is just sabotaging Bob Mueller's righteous crusade. You don't have to believe either to conclude that the Mueller team should have thought a little more about how it would try the case and a little less about how convenient it was to be able to tell the IRA story in an indictment. CyberScoop Wall Street Journal

There's another major leak about government skullduggery in cyberspace, David tells us, and Wikileaks is, uh, nowhere to be seen. That's because the skulldugging government in question is Vladimir Putin's, and Wikileaks is looking more and more like Putin's lapdog. So it falls to a group called Digital Revolution to publish internal FSB documents showing Russia's determination to acquire a huge DDOS network, maybe enough to take whole nations offline.

Alan Cohn makes a guest appearance to discuss the role that DHS's CISA is playing in the covid-19 crisis. And it has nothing to do with cybersecurity. Instead, CISA is ensuring the security of critical infrastructure around the country by identifying facilities that need to keep operating, notwithstanding state lockdown orders. We talk about the federalism crisis that could come from the proliferation of critical infrastructure designations but neither of us expects it soon.

Here's a surprise: Russia is deploying coronavirus disinformation, claiming that it is a US bioweapon. Uncharacteristically, I find myself praising the European Union for flagging the campaign.

Nick talks about the ambiguity of the cyberattack on Norsk Hydro, and I raise the risk that companies may stop releasing attribution information pointing to nation states because doing so may undercut their insurance claims.

Finally, we wrap up the story of ex-Uber autonomous driving executive Anthony Levandowski, who pled guilty to trade-secret theft and is likely headed to prison for a year or three.

Download the 307th Episode (mp3).

Take our listener poll at steptoe.com/podcastpoll.You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@steptoe.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug!

The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets.

Read this article:
Is privacy in pandemics like atheism in foxholes? - Reason

America was once full of Christians. Catholics, Baptists, and other denominations littered the landscape with cries of Hallelujah! and Youre going to Hell for butt stuff! Among industrialized nations, the United States was an outlier. While countries like Germany, Italy, and Britain enjoyed a post-Christian culture, the USA was still firmly in the hands of an angry God and His confused worshippers.

With the COVID-19 epidemic, the religious landscape is changing. The virus that is wrecking the world economy is taking a toll on traditional faith. Many Christians are seeing the light. They are turning away from Christianity and reaching for science.

Professor Andrew Canard heads the Sociology Department at the Theological Institute of Technology (TIT). He notes those who are turning away from the cross dont seem to know how to science:

The coronavirus is showing how empty the promises of Jehovah are. In some parts of the Bible God tells worshippers He will protect them, and at other times God tells people to take their lumps and theyll get their reward in heaven. Its crazy.

Whats disturbing is that these new followers of science are exchanging one God for another. They dont seem to understand science is a process.Rather, they are treating science as another deity to worship.

Professor Canard states these new science believers typically follow their new science-faith in certain ways:

Did you enjoy this post? How about buying the writer a cup of coffee!

Or becoming a Patron?

Read more here:
Christians Convert To Atheism And Pray To Science - Patheos

Who is the first person who comes to mind when you think of atheism?

Mind you, that doesnt mean the person is the most famous atheist. Just the name that comes up when you think of the word.

The Pew Research Center asked that question, along with similar ones concerning the major world religions, and they just released the responses. It wont surprise you to learn that Buddhism prompted Buddha (55% of respondents said that) or that Catholicism led to the Pope (47%).

Perhaps its a bit surprising that 21% associated Billy Graham with Evangelical Protestantism, more than any other single person, given that he died in 2018 and stopped preaching regularly long before then, though many of the more prominent evangelicals today are better known for politics than religion.

But when it came to atheism, the one name that came to mind more than any other was

6% of Americans thought Satan when prompted with atheism. Which doesnt even make sense. But there you go.

51% of Americans couldnt think of anyone, 10% said it was someone they knew personally (i.e. someone whos not famous), 26% gave a smattering of random answers (i.e. people who arent famous enough), and 4% each said Richard Dawkins and Madalyn Murray OHair (who was murdered in 1995).

There were some other names on the longer results list, many of whom were included in that 26% of random answers.

Theres astrophysicist Stephen Hawking (2%), comedian Bill Maher (2%), author Christopher Hitchens (1%) and, for whatever reason, Jesus (1%).

The big takeaway for me is that there really isnt any prominent atheist these days the sort of person who can cut through the atheism-only bubble and talk about it to a mainstream audience. The names that come up today are probably the same ones that wouldve come up a decade ago. Atheists arent as well known because atheism has become less of an issue since the New Atheism hype in the mid-2000s.

These results come from the same survey in which people were asked about their religious knowledge. As you may recall, Jewish respondents fared the best, closely followed by atheists and agnostics. But none of the groups did exceptionally well.

Many people dont know much about religion, period. So its no wonder that the most famous people associated with various belief systems arent necessarily ones that make sense. No living (or even recently alive) Jewish person made the popularity list. Even for evangelicals, the big names who were alive this century were Graham and Jerry Falwell (the despicable dead one, not his despicable son).

Or, if you want to spin that in a good way, it means there are openings for people who speak about their religious views to break into the American consciousness regardless of background. Just as we can always use strong science communicators, it would be wonderful to have a (literally new) atheist who can break through our own bubble, who the media can turn to for comment, and who isnt cringe-worthy in a variety of other ways. Its not something you can just volunteer for, but it starts by finding a way to advocate those views in a way that doesnt turn the whole world against you.

At least we can hope for that. The alternative is having an atheist version of Falwell, the sort of person you have to constantly apologize for instead of point to when your belief comes up.

(Featured image via Shutterstock)

Read more here:
What Name Comes to Mind When You Think of Atheism? Many Americans Say Satan - Patheos

In Amitav Ghoshs novel The Shadow Lines, the unnamed narrators grandmother whom he addresses as Tha'mma talks of how as a student in Dhaka, she wanted to join the revolutionary movement that was active in Bengal in the first decade of the 20th century. She talks of revolutionary societies like Jugantar and Anushilan and how a quiet, retiring classmate of hers turned out to be a member of one of them. These societies which were part of the first wave of the revolutionary movement propagated a programme of violent resistance to British rule by assassinating prominent British officials in their bid to state the case for Indias freedom. Highly motivated, secretive and daring, for a time, they caught the imagination of the public. Eventually, the British came down hard on them, sending several to the gallows.

But what remains unsaid is that while these societies were popular and patriotic, they were also characterised by a strong Hindu element in ideology and practice. They drew on the literature of Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay and Swami Vivekananda for inspiration, swore oaths on the Bhagavad Gita and often worshipped arms in the presence of an idol of Goddess Durga. It appears that non-Hindus found virtually no place in the movement.

Bhagat Singh. Image via WikimediaCommons

By contrast, the second wave of the revolutionary movement that grabbed the centre stage from the early 1920s and formed an important of the anti-colonial movement during that entire decade till the execution of Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev on March 23, 1931, was distinctly non-religious. While some individual members did observe their faith privately, religion formed no part of the rituals and conduct of the organisation itself. Arguably, in large part, this was on account of the convictions of Bhagat Singh.

In a long essay, Why I am an Atheist, written and completed in 1931, a few days before his hanging, Bhagat Singh laid bare the nature of his lack of faith. In a nuanced and well-argued stance, he traces how his atheism came to be. Clearly, atheism wasnt part of his childhood. His grandfather was an orthodox Arya Samajist and as a boarder at the DAV School, Lahore, the teenaged Bhagat Singh was in fact given to reciting the Gayatri Mantra several times a day. This habit lapsed in time, but not his faith in God. His close compatriot in revolutionary activities, Sachindra Nath Sanyal, was a fervent believer as well as were some of his other fellow-travellers in the revolutionary movement.

But in spite of keeping such company, by 1926, Bhagat Singhs faith had lapsed. In his own words, Realism became our cult. Atheism seemed to be the outcome of the extensive programme of the reading of revolutionary literature that Bhagat Singh had embarked on in the years prior to his final lapse of faith. And it was atheism that did not waver till his dying day.

"Belief softens the hardships, even can make them pleasant. In God man can find very strong consolation and support," Bhagat Singh states in the essay. But, given that many trials and tribulations lay ahead of him, what is perhaps of interest is how faith did not make a comeback to Bhagat Singhs life. By his own telling, his first arrest in May 1927 over suspected complicity in the Kakori Case did not send him scurrying to faith. In fact, the police officers who arrested him actually encouraged him to pray, perhaps as a veiled threat of sorts since they probably intended to apply third-degree methods to him. But it didnt make a dent.

Later, even when his execution was imminent, religious belief remained conspicuous by its absence. Clearly, faith had completely left him leaving no traces behind. Bhagat Singhs objection to faith and God seemed to be both philosophical as well as springing from the severe religious unrest that he observed around him which marred regular life in 1920s India. This was a matter that Bhagat Singh had also written on prior to 1931.

In an article entitled Religion and National Politics published in the journal Kirti, in May 1928, Bhagat Singh talks of how religion is proving to be a barrier to national unity and preventing people from moving forward in their quest for independence. The practices of social distancing mandated by religious leaders were proving to be a huge obstacle. Equally, religions habit of demanding complete submission was in Bhagat Singhs opinion, weakening individuals, and not helping to build their self-confidence.

Similarly, in another article, Communal Problem and Its Solution, published in the same journal the following month, Bhagat Singh comments darkly on the recent Lahore communal riots. These riots were prompted by the publication of a controversial book called Rangila Rasul by an individual with Arya Samaji persuasions which the Muslim community found offensive. On the other hand, cow slaughter was a sore point with the Hindu community. These differences were then sought to be resolved with daggers and fists. The article castigates the members of all three religious communities (Hindu, Muslim and Sikh) for their inability to keep a cool head in the face of provocation and the political leadership for their inability to play a constructive role. Interestingly, the article also takes to task the press and journalists for instigating communal tension through mischievous headlines and reports. The economic question, Bhagat Singh believes, is at the root of much of the tension and to attempt to solve that problem is to strike at the heart of the matter.

The impression that one gathers when re-reading these articles is that little has changed in close to a hundred years. On the one hand, it is tempting to say that religion has re-emerged as the faultline of Indian society in the last decade. But it appears that a heightened awareness of religious (and caste) differences was never very far away from the surface all along. Hence the inability of people to band together to demand more from elected representatives and the bureaucratic machinery. The nation has meandered along for seven decades riding on the back of some noteworthy achievements, but with most urgent tasks to do with economic matters left undone.

How then can we hope to plot our way forward?

In a country like India, while atheism is bound to have limited appeal, could we hope to make realism our cult? Could the sobering fact of widespread poverty, poor educational accomplishments and our lackadaisical health-care system not to mention the doddering economy and the agricultural crisis force us to look away from our religious and caste differences and concentrate on more compelling matters instead? The distractions that media and political leadership throw at us are not going to go away. It is up to us to look away.

That would perhaps be the greatest tribute to Bhagat Singh.

Find latest and upcoming tech gadgets online on Tech2 Gadgets. Get technology news, gadgets reviews & ratings. Popular gadgets including laptop, tablet and mobile specifications, features, prices, comparison.

Read more:
As religion re-emerges as the faultline of Indian society, could Bhagat Singh's ideas of atheism be a way... - Firstpost

The National University of Singapore has issued a statement to inform the public that the NUS Atheist Society Facebook page is not affiliated with the tertiary institution.

The statement by NUS was posted on March 20, after law and home affairs minister K Shanmugam slammed a post by the page that was deemed offensive to Muslims and Christians in Singapore:

The police are investigating the case.

NUS said in its statement it had on two occasions requested Facebook to look into the legitimacy of the account.

Facebook looked into the request, NUS added, but the social media giant had apparently responded that people are unlikely to be confused about the source, sponsorship or affiliation of NUS Atheist Society.

NUS said it will continue to press Facebook to drop all references to NUS.

This is NUSs statement in full:

NUS had reported the NUS Atheist Society Facebook page to Facebook last year and again on 19 March 2020. On both occasions, we requested that Facebook look into the legitimacy of the account.

Facebook has responded to say that the content on the reported site does not appear likely to confuse people as to source, sponsorship or affiliation, and they are unable to act on our report at this time.

We wish to clarify that NUS has no relationship with the NUS Atheist Society and the Facebook page is not affiliated to the University. The contents posted by the NUS Atheist Society do not represent the views, opinions and position of the University. We will continue pressing Facebook to get the group to drop all references to NUS.

In a unexpected development, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) announced on March 21 that it would be suspending the membership of one of its members, Jan Chan, with immediate effect.

PSP added that it is not linked to the NUS Atheist Society, and that it will work to ensure that all its members keep within the boundaries of the law.

PSP also said internal investigations are being conducted for actions made in Chans personal capacity.

The NUS Atheist Society Facebook page is still active as of March 21.

As per Facebooks notification to the NUS Atheist Society, the visibility of the post that featured the holy books of Muslims and Christians has been curtailed.

In a post Saturday afternoon post, the NUS Atheist Society page offered an apology of sorts:

The post said:

It was never my intent to suggest or encourage using two holy books as toilet paper. To that effect, the use of the holy books was intentionally left unspecified and to the interpretation of the audiences imagination. The news media, however, picked up one version of the story and thus, we are where we are.

My intent had been to demonstrate that a purposely vague statement, left to interpretation, could be and would be interpreted in the worst possible way. And, in seeing that the audience of this page are mainly either non-religious or familiar with this style of provocative humour, I had not considered that the post would reach the wider public.

If I had caused personal distress and emotional distress, I sincerely apologise and I am truly sorry. If however, the post had merely elicited outrage, then I would like to kindly request not to instinctively lodge a report to the police or higher authorities to demand satisfaction. Leave a comment and start that the civil conversation in society about questioning religion that atheism has for so long called for, but has thus far been ignored.

It had prior to this apology posted other pieces of content:

Continue reading here:
NUS says NUS Atheist Society Facebook page not affiliated with university - Mothership.sg

Alex Moreland interviews William Shaw about Doctor Who, his new book about The Rings of Akhaten, and more

I recently sat down with William Shaw a writer and blogger originally from Sheffield, now based in London, whose work has appeared in Star*Line, Space & Time, The Martian Wave, The Oxford Culture Review, and Doctor Who Magazine to discuss his upcoming book about The Rings of Akhaten. Its the latest in the Black Archive series published by Obverse Books; each book takes an in-depth look at a different episode of Doctor Who.

What follows is a wide-ranging discussion, getting to grips with Williams love for the controversial Series 7 episode, how it engages with and critiques both New Atheism and imperialism, and what its like to write a book about Doctor Who.

So, lets start with the obvious question. Why The Rings of Akhaten? What do you like about it?

I think its one of the boldest, most ambitious, and most radical episodes in all of Doctor Who. Its a heartfelt story, lushly realised and beautifully performed. Its a vital early step in the journey of Clara Oswald, the best companion (and arguably the best Doctor) the show has ever had. Its an early commentary on the shows fiftieth anniversary. And, as I talk about in the book, its a fascinating engagement with contemporary politics. I basically think its a critique of New Atheism (cf Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, etc) and its relationship to Doctor Who, but in doing that it necessarily touches on the legacy of colonialism, and Clara and Merrys relationship in the story is an interesting way into some topics from feminist theory. Like Claras leaf, it looks simple, but it contains multitudes.

Youve written forty thousand words about The Rings of Akhaten. Can you tell us a little about the different ideas/analysis youve touched on? Is there anything that might particularly surprise people? Or indeed that surprised you?

My starting point, as I say, was New Atheism, and talking about that necessarily meant bringing in some postcolonial theory, particularly Edward Said. Its remarkable how unimpressive the arguments of, say, Sam Harris really are when you realise Said was already on top of them in 1978. I also brought in some feminist theory, and Chandra Talpade Mohantys book Feminism Without Borders was really helpful in structuring the second chapter.

Of course, theres been plenty of good academic work about Doctor Who, and I was very impressed by Lindy Orthias work, although I didnt quote much of it directly. Matt Hills writing about the media event of Doctor Whos fiftieth anniversary was really useful, especially in chapter four where I talk about how The Rings of Akhaten ties in with that anniversary. Then of course theres the other Black Archives; Kate Ormans on Pyramids of Mars and Alyssa Frankes on Hell Bent were my favourites, and provided good models for what I wanted to do.

The most pleasant surprise in researching the book was when I was reading the contemporary reviews, and found out that Charlie Jane Anders had written about the episode. Shes one of my favourite authors working at the moment, so it was really nice to get her perspective.

Do you need to have an academic background at all to understand some of the ideas in the book?

I hope not! Having just name-dropped all that academic theory, I always aimed this book at the general reader (alright, maybe someone with more Doctor Who knowledge than the general reader, but still). I hope the book can be some peoples way into that academic theory; I think Doctor Who fandom would be in a much better place if more people had read Orientalism, for example. But you dont need to have studied this stuff to follow the book. I took care to explain academic concepts whenever I introduced them, and I dont think theres anything in the bibliography beyond a first-year undergrad level. My main editor, Philip Purser-Hallard, was very good at pointing out when I needed to explain things further or correct mistakes.

So, for those who are unfamiliar, could you explain what New Atheism and Orientalism actually are? How are they relevant to Doctor Who?

New Atheism is quite a broad phenomenon, but basically it refers to an uptick in popular atheist writing and political activity in Europe and America in the mid-to-late 2000s. Being the mid-to-late 2000s, it bears a clear relationship to the War on Terror, and the reactionary Islamophobia of that time (and this one). The most famous New Atheists are the Four Horsemen: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett. In the book I mostly concentrate on their writing, but the movement was large, and Very Online, so its influence can still be felt today, especially on social media and sites like YouTube.

Orientalism is a concept originally created by the literary theorist Edward Said, in his 1978 book Orientalism, and its foundational to postcolonial theory. Very basically, it refers to the intellectual paradigm by which western imperial powers have historically understood the East, or the Orient, with little or no reference to those regions actual histories and cultures. The Orient is simultaneously ancient and childlike, in need of protection and care from enlightened, mature westerners. Which is terribly convenient if you happen to be a colonial power. I highly recommend people read Orientalism, and the follow-up, Culture and Imperialism; theyre very rich but also very readable.

These two things interact with each other, of course; theres quite a bit of Orientalist thinking in New Atheism, and Said was actually friends with Christopher Hitchens at one point. But they both also interact with Doctor Who. The New Atheist movement was roughly contemporary with Russell T Davies revival of the show; Davies has said he took Bad Wolf from Dawkins idea of the meme. Pretty much any time religion comes up in the Davies era, theres a clear New Atheist influence. Orientalism goes back even further; the whole show comes out of the Victorian tradition of adventure fiction, which is just soaked in the attitudes Said describes. How many times has the Doctor visited an alien world with an ancient, mystical past populated by ignorant, squabbling aliens? How many times has he stepped in as an enlightened outsider to fix another peoples culture? Its not fair to single out Doctor Who in this, really, because its just endemic to so much science fiction.

I understand that the first time you watched the episode, it left you a little cold what was it that clicked for you the second time around?

Thats right, and this is something I talk about in the book. The key was making that connection with New Atheism. I remember watching it on broadcast and just going Yeah, that was OK, but a few years later I happened to listen to a podcast criticising the history of New Atheism around the time Series 7 was being repeated (or was showing up on iPlayer, anyway). It was like fitting together pieces of a jigsaw. Realising that the Doctor wasnt necessarily in the right, that the episode was about him making a crucial mistake, was what really cracked it for me; it became a whole new episode. Which is the story of that whole series, really.

The Rings of Akhaten is a little controversial, as an episode of Doctor Who. What would you say to the people who arent so fond?

Give it a watch with fresh eyes. Once you have the context of the rest of the series, and especially of Claras development through the Capaldi era, its much easier to see what the episode is going for, and largely succeeding at. Id also say, keep an open mind to the setting; one of my favourite things about Doctor Who is that it can show us such strange and captivating worlds, things like The Web Planet or The End of the World. If you can groove on that sense of exploration, and are willing to be surprised, I think the quality of the film-making really shines through.

Its also situated in a run of episodes which are themselves looked on a little less than fondly theres a school of thought that says Series 7 is the weakest of the Steven Moffat era. Youre an ardent defender of that series what is it you like about them?

Series 7 is my favourite of the Matt Smith era. There are lots of reasons for this, but foremost is the sheer quality of the individual stories. It has a rich variety of settings and styles, and a fantastic sense of forward momentum; it has the best series opener/companion introduction of the entire Moffat era in The Bells of St John, it has some of the best episodes Chris Chibnall and Mark Gatiss ever wrote, and its topped off by the two best specials Doctor Who has ever done. Its also, I think, the best Doctor Who has ever looked; Saul Metzstein, Nick Hurran, Colm McCarthy, Farren Blackburn, and Jamie Payne are among the shows best directors, and the cinematography is consistently beautiful.

Its also a fascinating celebration of the shows fiftieth anniversary. Its joyful and triumphant, yes, but theres real thought, and at times a slight anxiety, about the show and its history. Its a celebration, but its not uncritical. Theres a sense of hooray, we made it fifty years! But how can we keep moving forward? And its answer to that question is The Capaldi/Coleman era, which, as answers go, is pretty great. Its this fascinating bridge between the two halves of the Moffat era, past and present and future all jumbled together, like some sort of hybrid or something.

Do you think The Rings of Akhaten, and Series 7 more broadly, are due a critical reappraisal soon?

Absolutely. If theres one thing I want to achieve with this book (other than, hopefully, being interesting to read), its to try and shift fandoms view of this episode. There are plenty of fans who love the episode, of course, and thats great, but I think if fandom in general can see even part of what I see in it, then my work is done.

As for series 7, I think it is due a reappraisal pretty soon. Now that the Chibnall era is in full swing, now Moffat and Smith arent such an active concern, and the buzz of media hype and fan discussions has died down a bit, I think theres space for people to go back to that series with the benefit of hindsight.

Lets talk about actually writing the book. Where did that begin for you? What was the process like?

I have a few friends from university who are Doctor Who fans, and we occasionally meet up to have lunch and watch old episodes together. We were having a gathering in October 2017, and I thought this might be an opportunity to road-test my opinions on Akhaten. They very kindly agreed to watch The Rings of Akhaten and let me give a half-hour lecture, so I wrote about 6,000 words and delivered them there. The reception was really great, and my friends gave me lots of helpful feedback; theyre all included in the books acknowledgements. I took this initial lecture and their feedback, and refined that into my pitch to Obverse Books, which they very kindly accepted at the start of 2018. After that, as you can imagine, I was off to the races.

Excitingly, youve got an exclusive interview with Farren Blackburn, the director of the episode. How did you go about setting that up? Can you tell us anything about what Farren told you?

The credit for that goes to one of my editors, Paul Simpson. He edits Sci-Fi Bulletin, and they interviewed Farren Blackburn about The Innocents around the time I was writing the first draft. So Paul put us in touch, and Farren very kindly agreed to an interview. I dont want to spoil too much, but he gave some really nice insights, particularly around his direction of actors. Its an underappreciated aspect of directing, I think, especially on Doctor Who, but he got a great set of performances out of his cast, and it was fascinating to hear some of the thought process behind that. He also very kindly gave me permission to publish a behind-the-scenes document he wrote early in production. I remember grinning when I first read it, his enthusiasm just jumps off the page. Farren has been very generous with his time, and very patient with this strange fanboy talking incessantly about the episode he worked on seven years ago. Im very grateful to him for that.

Check back this Saturday for the second part of our interview with William, as we ask him what he thinks Neil Cross mightve been like as Doctor Who showrunner, what he thinks of depictions of faith in the Jodie Whittaker era, and more!

William Shaws Black Archive on The Rings of Akhaten is available now. You can find William online here, or on Twitter @Will_S_7.

Photo Credit: Lweendo Emmanuel Ndawana

Alex Morelandis a freelance writer and television critic; you canfollow him on Twitter here, orcheck out his website here.

See the rest here:
Exclusive Interview William Shaw on Doctor Who, his new book about The Rings of Akhaten, and more (Part One) - Flickering Myth

The joke going around in virus land is that there are no libertarians in a pandemic, just as there are no atheists in foxholes. For some people this is, no doubt, a joke with a double meaning. Even if atheists may be less willing to climb into foxholes than Presbyterians or Yazidis in the first place, the study of soldier experiences and war literature suggests that combat is pretty darn good at sowing materialism and encouraging questioning of revealed wisdom.

Yes, there are atheists in foxholes, dummy, even if they didnt bring atheism with them; and even if a pandemic teaches lessons in the usefulness of capable, powerful government, it perhaps has just as many about the harmfulness and stupidity of government as it generally exists in the real world.

The United States, to take one infuriating example, is about to have an awful lot of unnecessary deaths because, through ill-considered peacetime regulation, it allowed its national disease-surveillance agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, to acquire what was tantamount to a manufacturing monopoly on DNA testing of virus samples. It wasnt a competent monopoly, either, as things turned out. We are still seeing American news items about academic and private laboratories the kinds of places that developed DNA sequencing in the first place, and which were its exclusive domain until recently that hope to help increase testing capacity, but must wait for permission from the federal paterfamilias.

The United States is about to have an awful lot of unnecessary deaths

Meanwhile, the evidence from countries that have already had proper battles with novel coronavirus, as opposed to our preliminary skirmishes, mostly seems to carry the message For the love of God, test as much as you can. So good luck to the Americans, and also (gulp) to us: it is starting to appear as though one of the tightest bottlenecks in scaling up lab testing might be fraction-of-a-cent nasopharyngeal swabs, rather than sequencing appliances or virus samples.

Anyway, thats a digression, one that I cant resist because the narrative of central government failure suits my taste. But some of you will be asking why beautiful free markets havent provided us with more of those swabs. Still, its not quite just to say that every libertarian turns into a cringing supplicant of the state in a pandemic. Yes, right now a lot of Canadians are relieved that a state with the power to lock up businesses, arenas and churches in the name of public safety also has the power to send cheques from the future to the people who have lost their jobs.

I approve of all this too, since I am lucky enough to have a career that benefits a little from crisis and chaos. We need to help those people whose work is actual work, and who cannot do that work because an act of God requires exceptional remedies. But it is fairly easy to see how the crisis could be exploited to injure civil liberties permanently, as opposed to just re-habituating us to welfare, which some politicians are unabashedly keen on. Anyone who lived through 9/11 already knows this in his bones.

Medical privacy is already something we relax when it comes to the reporting of infectious disease. You will hear the argument that we make a fetish of it that clinical research would be so much easier without it, as it is when human research subjects voluntarily surrender it. There will also be pundits and experts along soon to say how convenient it would be if cellphone tracking data, which would be real handy for cops and working epidemiologists doing disease surveillance, were available a little more freely.

And as our time in social lockdown creeps along, you and I will I promise! grow less patient with those who defy it brazenly, or those who are otherwise irresponsible about social distancing. Isnt due process of law an awful lot of trouble? The police have batons and sidearms, dont they?

Medical privacy is already something we relax when it comes to the reporting of infectious disease

The realistic libertarian understands the distinction probably not invented by Murray Rothbard, but that is where I personally got it from between society and the state, between social action and government powers based on retaliatory violence. A mess like this demonstrates the difference to all of us. Why does liberal democracy function reasonably well, when enlightened despotism (bound by strong rules about individual rights, or not) is always an alternative?

One reason is that, in emergencies, the state can take extraordinary steps with some show of consent or pre-existing licence from society (which itself does most of the heavy lifting, and even most of the enforcement). When society is chronically at odds with the state, even for good historical reasons, you end up with Italy a wonderful place to be most of the time, but not right now.

I may not have voted for Jason Kenney or Justin Trudeau, but we did, and an epidemic is a situation in which the necessity for us to work in concert is overwhelming. We have an extraordinary selfish incentive to obey, however hateful and nauseous the word obedience may be to us. Democracy is a transparent fiction which rises unbidden to vivid realness at such a time, as it would if we were confronted with a visible invader.

See the article here:
Colby Cosh: As disgusting as it sounds, obedience is a virtue with coronavirus - National Post

Ive had the pleasure of connecting with tons of secular parents here on the intertubes since starting the Godless Mom blog. Ihear lots of stories some are sad, some are triumphant, some just gutting. There are a few things I hear though, that just strike me as strange. These thingsfeel counterproductive to me and could have the opposite effect you are hoping them to.

Heres a handful of the most frequent actions taken by atheist parents who contact me, that in my mind are complete no-nos:

1. Dont refuse to attend family functions in religious buildings.If youve been invited to a family wedding at a church, or a Bar Mitzvah at a synagogue just go. Refusal to do so, based solely on the grounds that you are an atheist, is petty. By refusing to go, youre assigning power tothe religious venue and dont think for two seconds your kids wont pick up on this. If you want your children to see a church or a synagogueas just another building like any other, then dont give it the power to keep you out.

2. Dont shield your children from religion or religious people. If there are religious people in your childs life, be okay with them talking to your children about their religion. Just insist that you are either present or told what has been said. Youre never going to be able to stop them from being exposed to religion completely, so you might as well be in control of it. As well, many atheists will attest, the more you know about religion, the less likely you are to believe it.

3. Donttell your kids what to think about religion. Instead, tell them what you believe and what others believe and ask them what they think of it. Prompt their little minds to think critically by asking things like, Does that make sense to you? Why or why not? Putting them in a position to have to explain their thought process will trigger critical thought like nothing else.

4. Dont push your kids into learning about religion. Let them guide you. If and when they show interest or ask, Mommy, what is God?, thats when you begin to explore the topic together. If your child appears to lose interest, then let it go. Forcing your kids to hear about religion is only going to make the topic stand out to them. It gives it a power that other topics simply do not have.Youre saying to them, in not so many words, that religion holds no power over you, but they are seeing the opposite. When you cant drop the subject or let it go, it clearly does have power over you. Kids tend to see the examples you set far sooner than they hear the words you are saying.

5. Dont neglect other topics. I know this sounds like a no-brainer, but I have had a few parents email me telling me that they try and try to explain religion to their kids and it sounds almost as though thats all they talk about with them. Forcing your children to be lectured about things they have no interest in will only cause resentment and sometimes even rebellion against the very sentiments you are trying to teach. Just relaxteaching your kids about a large variety of things will help keep their curiosity sparked and that is all thats needed to grow into adults who value critical thought.

7.Dont take away religious holidays they might be used to. If all of their friends celebrate Christmas, and they look forward to it and it makes them happy, then why would you deprive them of that? This will cause resentment and also applies power to the religious aspect of the holiday: it has the power to stop you from celebrating it.

Being an atheist does not come with a dogma. We are not, in absence of belief in God, now forced to reject everything associated with a God claim. This is unreasonable and implies that atheism prescribes a certain way of life. We all know it doesnt. Dont let your disbelief rule your world, because your children will see that. They will take note and it could work in the exact opposite way you meant it to. You could endup with your very own Ken Ham living in your basement at 43 collecting pop cans to pay for his model of the ark.

Just relax. As an atheist, religion should not be a serious thing one way or the other. Dont let it have power. Celebrate your kids natural curiosity, be honest with them and I think youll find that they grow into critical thinking, rational adults.

Im writing a book addressing the many reasons believers distrust atheists. Im around 40,000 words in! If you want to help me get it done, you can support me by donatinghereor becoming a patronhere.

Image: Creative Commons/Pixabay

The rest is here:
7 Atheist Parenting Don'ts | Courtney Heard - Patheos