I have to thank Nanay’s National Bookstore (NBS) for making available decent books at affordable prices. I’m not advertising NBS but the truth is my bibliophilic generation is truly “Laking National”. When we were much younger, only NBS had carried good books in many of its branches. True there were other more specialist bookstores with fine books like Erehwon, Bookmark, Solidaridad and Popular, these bookstores were located in faraway Makati and Ermita (I lived in QC) or in the case of Popular just off Avenida Rizal near the Rathaus beerhouse. The first two bookshops are defunct, Sionil-Jose’s Solidaridad is still around and Popular has moved to a trendier location on Quezon City’s Tomas Morato near the Boy Scout roundabout. When I was an undergrad, a lefty friend of mine and I would take public transpo to get to Popular since this was the only place where we can read “commie” books. This is where I got my whole edition of Marx’s Das Kapital. Recall that this was in the waning years of the Marcos dictatorship.
Popular was also the only bookstore to carry erotic classics like Boccacio’s “Decameron” and the Olympia Readers. But NBS wasn’t left out. NBS carried these titles too but were not prominently displayed. NBS had a wider clientele than Popular and had to play with the public’s mores.
The lefty friend and I trooped to the new Popular in Quezon City a year ago and while the “commie” books are still there. In these more democratic times, reading communist books is a ho hum but one thing is missing, the proletariat feel of reading “forbidden books” in a dingy bookshop is gone. In the old Popular, I could fantasize as a would be Lenin. In the new Popular, I could fantasize as a would be Bill Gates!
Now back to NBS. The store has recognized the maturing readership of its customers and now carries a wide range of books. Its spinoff, Powerbooks and Bestsellers carry many of the good titles but the old NBS even has better titles if you know where to look. It is only in NBS that a copy of “Hitler and Aesthetics” can be had. For the arki types, the book should be a good read since Imeldific and Ferdie understood that Architecture is Power and Imeldific like it or not is immortal since she undoubtly understood the Theory of Ruin Value.
The nice thing about NBS is that it has a twice a year “cut price” book sale. In these recessionary times, they cut the prices of books up to 80% off. I found the latest Galileo biography by Michael White “Galileo: Antichrist” in a pile of books at NBS Quezon Avenue. It was on 50% discount. This book is absolutely heretical and can get the traditionalists into apoplectic fits.
In bookstores like National, Popular, Solidaridad and the newbies like Powerbooks and Fully Booked (which I would like to see cut prices like National does) can we keep independent thinking alive as long as they sell decent books. To be independent, one risks to be called a heretic and that exactly what Galileo and our own Rizal did.
I have an interest in Galileo and have a few of Stillman Drake’s autobiographies of the man. (BTW I got these books for a dollar each at a Louisiana flea market). I also got the Cambridge reader on Galileo which I bought for 60% off the shelf price at a cut price sale three years ago. My interest here is how science can clash with religion. The thesis is that science will always clash with religion. While in Galileo’s time it was with the Roman Church, today it is with the various Christian fundamentalist sects, Islam, anti GMO environmentalists, animal rights advocates and even Marxists.
The Roman Church is unlikely to meet science head on since it is still shell shocked by the Galileo affair. This even if Pope John Paul II had issued an “apology”. The Church was able to survive the Reformation but it isn’t likely to survive a clash with Science with its reputation intact.
To his credit John Paul II had come to terms with Galileo since he had an interest in science and as a Pole, had interest in the Copernican theory. However John Paul II’s Galileo commission reduced the Galileo affair into three points
1) Galileo did not understand that the Copernican theory was a hypothesis
2) The theologians then did not correcty understand Scripture
3) When Copernicanism was verified, the Church accepted this and admitted implicitly that it was wrong in condemning the hypothesis.
Roman Catholic apologists today lay the blame on Galileo for not understanding what a scientific hypothesis really was. Galileo may have been a garrulous man but he did have some empirical evidence for the Heliocentric theory (in fact by demonstrating that Venus had phases and moons orbited Jupiter, he falsified the Ptolemaic theory). Even today there are some Catholic traditionalists that are really fringe since they still believe in a geocentric universe! They do shame the intellectual tradition of the Church (even if it did erred).
This apologists’ stance represents a scandalous twisting of facts. The Church wasn’t really interested in the scientific merits of Copernicanism but was in threats to its power as represented in its worldview. Neither Bellarmine or Barberini in Galileo’s committee were interested in the science and were trained scientists. Joseph Ratzinger then a cardinal said that the Church was more faithful to reason than Galileo himself was.
White’s thesis is this and refers to motive: Science is motivated by a desire to know and understand while Religion is motivated by fear. Fear that its hierarchs will lose their power over the faithful.
White says that the Church had Galileo gagged since one of his works “the Assayer” had a passage that denied Transubstantiation.
I reproduce the passage in Stillman Drake’s translation from the original Italian
“Now I say that whenever I conceive any material or corporeal substance, I immediately feel the need to think of it as bounded, and as having this or that shape; as being large or small in relation to other things, and in some specific place at any given time; as being in motion or at rest; as touching or not touching some other body; and as being one in number, or few, or many. From these conditions I cannot separate such a substance by any stretch of my imagination. But that it must be white or red, bitter or sweet, noisy or silent, and of sweet or foul odor, my mind does not feel compelled to bring in as necessary accompaniments. Without the senses as our guides, reason or imagination unaided would probably never arrive at qualities like these. Hence I think that tastes, odors, colors, and so on are no more than mere names so far as the object in which we place them is concerned, and that they reside only in he consciousness. Hence if the living creature were removed, all these qualities would be wiped away and annihilated. But since we have imposed upon them special names, distinct from those of the other and real qualities mentioned previously, we wish to believe that they really exist as actually different from those.”
Here Galileo has anticipated the empiricism of John Locke. In fact this empiricism remains the philosophical foundation of modern science.
This “denial of Transubstantiation” argument should thrill DJB! The question that is still valid today is how far can fundamentalism deal with science and its goal of objective truth? And this is not with the Roman Church alone, but also with the secular social constructivists and relativists and all sorts of ideologies.
While White’s thesis needs more documentary evidence (the denial of Transubstantiation is an old Protestant argument and there is no evidence to show that Galileo was indeed a Protestant), I believe White’s title is misleading. Galileo wasn’t antichrist but more antichurch. What the historical record shows that Galileo had many Protestant fans. But Protestant belief has nothing to do with it for both Luther and Calvin were even more anti-intellectual and barbaric than the Pope himself.If the Pope did burn Giordano Bruno on the stake, Calvin had a scientist roasted on a spit, according to White.
Having read the Assayer once more, I believe that White is over reading a conspiracy theory on it. The “atomistic” theory espoused by Galileo is not new. Democritus first proposed it. But Galileo was a true anti-Aristotelian. The classification of “substance and accident” so central to the Catholic belief in the Eucharist is not supportable in science. And there science will have to leave it at that.
Science today does not deal with Aristotelian categories but science will have to deal with newer religions like secularism. For some secularists (mainly constructivists) science’s objectivity is a heresy. That’s why I love discussing philosophy with people from UP’s CSSP . They think I am a heretic. This should be a laugh. My Catholic friends don’t think I am a heretic but more of a looney Catholic. But I much admire Benedict XVI whose razor sharp mind is worth emulating. Anti-GMO advocates think I am a heretic for I subscribe to the theory that nature itself is a genetic manipulator! In local bookstores we find books advocating the pro and con views on the matter. Benedict thinks the anti-GMO line is silly.
We need heresy to ensure that thinking will remain free. The freedom of thought is absolute. Bookstores are venues for thinking and in some ways better than the universities. The first constraint to this kind of freedom is censorship and the levy of taxes on books.
At least the Roman Church has realized that the Index of Prohibited Books is a waste of time. In Pinoy society we still have such an index of sorts.
Popularity: 1% [?]
I’m thinking of starting an atheist group. My friends discourage it. Will this be a good idea when my place is dominated by Religious nuts?
I have to gently remind you that Atheism is a religion too.
really?
you have atheist of latter day saints?
iglesia ni atheista?
***
unabashed copy-paste –
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathm_rel_religion.htm
Myth:
Atheism is just another religion.
Response:
For some strange reason, many people keep getting the idea that atheism is itself some sort of religion. It’s an assertion which I keep hearing in newsgroups, in private email, and in this site’s chat room. Maybe it is because these people are so caught up in their own religious beliefs that they cannot imagine any person living without religion of some sort. Maybe it is due to some persistent misunderstanding of what atheism is. And maybe they just don’t care that what they are saying really doesn’t make any sense.
Whatever the actual reasons, this claim keeps appearing and this article is my attempt to answer such ideas by dissecting an actual letter which I have received, one which manages to perpetrate a number of mistakes:
That’s the whole letter in one shot, in order to give readers a sense of original context. Let us now examine it piece by piece so that we can get a better sense of just what lies behind it all…
Whether it fits technically with the semantics or not is not a concern of mine;
In other words, he doesn’t care if he misuses language to fit his purposes? This is a very sad attitude to adopt, but at least he is honest enough to admit it – others making the same claims are less forthright. The fact is, his (convenient) definition lacks one of the central aspects of what a religion most often is (a belief in gods or the supernatural) – and that’s an abuse of language. In fact, whether or not atheism fits technically with the semantics of “religion” should be a concern of his, if he has any interest in an honest dialogue.
Let’s examine what he considers to be the defining characteristics of “religion.”
…a religion, with clearly defined rules, eschatology and a philosophy by which to live. Religion is a means of understanding our existence.
Does atheism have anything approaching “clearly defined rules?” Not in the least. There is only one “rule,” and that is the rule of the definition of “atheism” – not having any belief in any gods. Other than that, atheists are free to do whatever they want and still be called atheists. An atheist can do and believe absolutely anything beyond gods and still fit the definition. Quite the opposite of how “rules” are treated in a religion. This is one area where a misunderstanding of what atheism is probably comes into play.
Does atheism have an “eschatology? Eschatology is a “belief about the end of the world or the last things.” Now, I’m sure that many atheists have some sort of beliefs about how the world might end, but those beliefs sure aren’t clearly defined or uniform among all of us. In fact, any beliefs about the end of the world are accidental – that is to say, they are not a necessary part of atheism. There is absolutely, positively nothing inherent in the disbelief in gods that leads one to any opinions about the end of the world. Quite the opposite of how ‘eschatology’ is treated in a religion.
Does atheism contain “…a philosophy by which to live?” Atheists certainly have philosophies by which they live. A popular philosophy might be Secular Humanism. Another might be objectivism. Still another could be some form of Buddhism. There is not, however, a clearly defined philosophy common to all or even most atheists. In fact, there is nothing inherent in the disbelief in god(s) which leads a person to any philosophy of life (although a person without such a philosophy might be a bit strange). Quite the opposite of how ‘philosophy of life’ is treated in a religion.
Religion is a means of understanding our existence. Atheism fits that bill.
Sorry, wrong yet again. As the term is normally used, atheism means not believing in any gods. That’s as far as “understanding existence” goes with atheism. Other than gods, there’s a lot of room for differences among atheists as to what they think about existence. Thus, atheism itself is not an “understanding”, but a single commonality. Any two atheists might have as much in common as a Christian and a devout believer in Odin – both of whom are obviously theists. Although some person’s understanding of their existence might contain a principle of atheism, that atheism is not itself the means to understanding.
The belief in an objectively existing world is a common assumption, too – but the people who share it don’t belong to a common religion, now do they? Besides, since many atheists don’t believe that gods “exist” and, hence, aren’t a part of “existence”, that disbelief doesn’t have to be seen as understanding “existence”. I don’t believe in the Tooth Fairy, and that disbelief isn’t a means of understanding our existence, doesn’t have an eschatology, and certainly has no clearly defined rules.
Religion is a philosophy of life. So is atheism.
Atheism is a disbelief, not a philosophy. My disbelief in the Tooth Fairy is not a philosophy of life – is it for anyone else? Furthermore, a philosophy of life is not necessarily a religion and it doesn’t necessitate that a religious belief exists in the person with the philosophy.
Religions has its leaders, the preachers of its tenets. So does atheism (Nietzsche, Feuerbach, Lenin, Marx).
All of those philosophers disagreed in many ways – thus supporting my contention that atheism, as such, does not have any set of “clearly defined rules” and is not a single religion. Many atheists, in fact, have no interest in those authors.
The Democratic Party, the United Way, a university – all have had their leaders. Are they religions? Of course not – anyone who suggests such a thing would be immediately recognized as a loon, but somehow people imagine that it is respectable to do the same with atheism.
Religion has its faithful believers, who guard the orthodoxy of the faith. So does atheism.
What possible orthodoxy is there for anyone to guard? There are those who attempt to guard the orthodoxy of belief in the Democratic Party – is that a religion, too? At least political parties have some semblance of “orthodox beliefs” which are worth guarding against the gradual shifts of culture.
And religion is a matter of faith, not certainty. Your own faithful say that, as that is what I was referring to in my posting.
“…my own faithful…?” Who are they? What is he talking about? He acts like I’m a high-priest of atheism. Some people imagine that those who read this site and regularly visit the chat room and/or bulletin board are somehow “followers” – but they are simply reading their own predispositions onto the lives of others.
Just because religion necessitates the existence of faith does not mean that the existence of faith (in whatever form) necessitates the existence of religion. I have “faith” in my wife’s love for me – is that a religion? Of course not. I have “faith” in the value of empiricism – is that a religion? Of course not, that’d be silly. The connection between religion and faith only goes in one direction, not both.
Moreover, religionists in cases like this love to equivocate upon the term “faith.” Faith has multiple meanings – not all of which are exactly the same. The sort of faith to which I refer above and which one might consider common among atheists is that of simple confidence based upon past experience. Moreover, that faith is not limitless – it should only go as far as evidence warrants. In religion, however, faith means a great deal more – it is, in fact, essentially a belief without or in spite of evidence.
Welcome to the religious world! Please forgive my contentious tone. However, I would very much like to bring some (albeit not all as that is not possible) to the realization that all religions set themselves apart from the crowd; they are the pure, the faithful, all others are just “religion.” Here again, atheism fits the bill.
Huh? This makes no sense. Just because atheists see themselves “apart from the crowd,” this makes atheism a religion? Absurd.
At every point in the above letter, there is an attempt to show places where religions and atheism have something in common. I’ve either pointed out that there isn’t anything in common – that the alleged commonality is shared by other organizations or beliefs that clearly aren’t religions – or, finally, that the alleged commonality isn’t a necessary part of atheism. The problem is, the author managed to pick things that aren’t necessary parts to religion. A religion doesn’t have to have leaders, an eschatology, defenders, etc. to be a religion. Just because something does have those things doesn’t mean that it is a religion. If someone disagrees, they’re going to have to do a better job of supporting this position than just listing them – they’re going to have to explain, in depth, just how each of those points are sufficient and necessary.
Perhaps it would also help to examine what a religion is. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, in its article on Religion, lists some characteristics of religions. The more markers that are present in a belief system, the more “religious like” it is. Because it allows for broader grey areas in the concept of religion, I prefer this over more simplistic definitions we can find in basic dictionaries. Read the list and see how atheism fares :
1. Belief in supernatural beings (gods).
2. A distinction between sacred and profane objects.
3. Ritual acts focused on sacred objects.
4. A moral code believed to be sanctioned by the gods.
5. Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of guilt, adoration), which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects and during the practice of ritual, and which are connected in idea with the gods.
6. Prayer and other forms of communication with gods.
7. A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein. This picture contains some specification of an over-all purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into it.
8. A more or less total organization of one’s life based on the world view.
9. A social group bound together by the above.
To try and claim that atheism is a religion requires, it should be pretty obvious from the above, a radical ad hoc redefinition in what it is that “being a religion” is supposed to mean, resulting in a radically equivocal use of the new term– if atheism is a religion, then just what isn’t a religion?
In addition, it should be noted that theism itself does not qualify as a religion based upon the above – and for most of the same reasons that atheism does not qualify. When you stop to think about it, theism – the mere belief in god(s) – does not automatically entail almost any of the beliefs or practices listed in either the above letter or the above definition. In order to have a religion, you need quite a bit more than either simple belief or disbelief. This fact is clearly reflected in the real world, because we find theism which exists outside of religion and religion which exists without theism.
Sure. In the same manner that collecting stamp is a religion.
Atheism is a religion since the belief that there is no God is a belief not supported by empirical evidence. There is more scientific certainty that evolution did occur than God doesn’t exist. In fact it is more plausible that the existence of God is due to Darwinian processes. The evidence for this is that belief in God seems to confer fitness.
But what is religion in your definition?
you are late.
The Copernicus-Galileo story is yet another once of the Catholic Church’s own sins along with the Inquisition and Crusades. Though take note, this was when Protestants were few and the Church had strong political connections. It was corrupt and power-hungry then (is it still?).
If you don’t like the Catholic Church, take my lead and choose a good Protestant church, hehehe.
Note that the Book Blockade ain’t over yet.
Anyone remember Alemar’s?
Galileo wouldn’t dare to be Protestant. To him Protestants don’t think!
Alemar’s sold textbooks. Goodwill once sold books at even less cost than National. Goodwill has largely given up the book retailing biz and now focuses on academic bookselling.
Galileo was nearly burned in the stake, by telling everybody that
the Earth revolves around the Sun. And that the world is round.
If you cannot afford books. Just go to your nearby Library. You can
borrow and read. We in the U.S.; can go to the internet to access
books from the Washington National Library. We can read on all subjects; whatever your taste.
There still are banned books in the USA despite the supposed liberties its citizens enjoy. Would you believe that Steinbeck’s “Grapes of Wrath” is banned by some school boards? The conservatives can’t handle the “lactation episode” in the last chapter. Steinbeck borrowed the imagery from Classical art.
You can read it in any Library. Banned in some schools. But you can find it somewhere. It depends on your initiative.
You can invoke the Freedom of Information Act. To read
even the most seditious article. Consult a good
Lawyer specializing in Human Rights. If you get in trouble in accessing banned informations and articles.
Actually, the substance-accident dichotomy and Aristotle’s categories are still supported through Neo-Scholastic Philosophy. They are metaphysical notions. Modern empirical positive science did not negate them. Galileo only succeeded in toppling the Ptolemaic model but wasn’t able to demonstrate it during his lifetime. He lacked evidence as Kepler was ignored and he did not have an adequate Physical theory even while did he usher the rise of modern Physics. The Pope, when still Cardinal and during his early reign, was open to Galileo’s Copernicanism, but Galileo made a fool of the Pope by putting his words in Simplicio’s mouth in his Dialogues–not a good move by Galileo. It was this history of friendship that may have influenced the Pope to lighten his “crime” into simply a house arrest. John Locke is a strong advocate of empiricism but is only one among a line of thinkers advocating empiricism from David Hume. David Hume is agnostic towards “substance.”
That’s why I find White’s argument that the Assayer denied transubstantiation. Protestants have a better argument.
I meant White’s argument is quite weak.
Sam Harris has a better suggestion. We should stop calling non-believers in Allah, Wotan, Thor, Vishnu, Christian Skydaddy, Zeus, Bathala, Buddha, Vaal etc. as atheists.
We should call non-believers in fairy tales RATIONALISTS.
I don’t believe in superstition, that’s all. Atheist, rationalist, religionist? What the heck, I don’t care what they’ll call me.
Well, there are the stories in the bible and those who would hold them out as fact, and there are the superstitions left and right of white ladies and salt over the shoulder and those who guide their day by the alignment of the planets, and there are intellects so keen as to be unable to state their case in terms simple enough for common man to grasp, rather like Hume . . . and it is an interesting collection of typists who inhabit this blog . . .
I rather think a good story is a good story, and one can learn from it, but one should not tie his soul to the utterances of man. God is to be found in that which the brightest of intellects cannot explain, the scale of a universe we cannot comprehend, in a vessel we cannot grasp, for what is outside? The matter that joins all, that we cannot see, and some extraordinary ability of uncommon minds to connect without words.
To pin one’s beliefs, heart and soul, on the small container of grey wrinkle that is the human brain is rather, ummmmmm, suspicious . . .
Joe
“To pin one’s beliefs, heart and soul, on the small container of grey wrinkle that is the human brain is rather, ummmmmm, suspicious . . .”-Joe
Hmmmn, that’s interesting, Joe. You think it’s better for us to use our heart (or gut, if you will) instead of the brain to believe in anything?
Bert,
Oh, the heart or gut are valuable, the brain intensely so. But rationality only gets you so far. The Mystery you mention below is the proof of the limitations of our intellect. I mean, think about it. All we are is animals with a conscience and outstanding ability to contemplate and create. But what we don’t know, we don’t know. Therein rests God, probably smiling, maybe laughing.
Joe
Precisely. The Gaps that are filled with God – for now.
You are getting more and more interesting, Joe. But why should God be hiding in that extremely remote place thus keeping us forever ignorant then laugh at us for our ignorance. Is God a spoiled brat and playing with His creations? Are we His toys?
Bert,
You think I know the answers? I only have my small clump of grey wrinkles. The problem is that you presume God has human needs, like toys or even a sense of time. He is not hidden, He is everywhere, in the interconnection of all things. Don’t worry about it, my friend. Just enjoy the riches that are given you, and strive to do Good. My point is that human rationality can only take you so far. Not “all the way”.
Joe
“God is to be found in that which the brightest of intellects cannot explain, the scale of a universe we cannot comprehend, in a vessel we cannot grasp, for what is outside?”-Joe
That’s even a bit more interesting, Joe. You seems to be telling us that God wants to stay in an extremely remote place. Mysterious indeed.
All the way as in to heaven? What do you mean by “all the way” Joe?
tranquil,
To know God.
Joe
Joe,
But did you not just say God is mysterious, unknowable, beyond explaining and/or comprehension?
Human rationality may not have come as far – yet – in divining the secrets of the universe but it is a far more reliable tool and we have already in fact made great strides on the direction of understanding both the macro and micro component of the universe. And when science makes its progress – as it will – the God of the gaps will have very little corner to hide.
tranquil,
Absolutely, pursue on, for the path is what the journey is about, not the end, or we should, as Camus posited, otherwise just commit suicide and be done with the charade.
Of course, I do expect that little green creatures from other planets will visit us soon and convey to us the True Knowledge. Statistically and rationally speaking, they should be arriving at any moment. And short cuts are allowed, of course.
Joe
blackshama
What a discombobulated logic. You do not need evidence for the non-existence of anything. You are imagining a skydaddy, it is you who should provide evidence for your fantastic fairy tale.
When I say I do not believe in a flying reindeer, I say so with a certainty of no evidence of a winged reindeer hopping between clouds or planets. Proving a negative is a ridiculous idea.