There goes any respect I might have had for Reza Aslan. He’s joined the “lying for Jesus” contingent.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Anyone seeking more proof of Reza Aslan’s self-important shilling and/blind obedience to Sharia indoctrination, or his thinly veiled agenda driven mischaracterizations of first world secularism in general, only needs read the first 3 paragraphs of this desperate plea for validation addressed to anyone just outside-of-the-loop enough to buy it.

Assuming for a moment we ignore Aslan’s conspicuous, and woefully inaccurate aspersions, any semblance of credibility Aslan may have entertained starting the article was quickly dashed when he erroneously postulates “..parallels with religious fundamentalism are obvious and startling: the conviction that they are in sole possession of truth (scientific or otherwise)..” where neither science or secularism has ever made such claims.

If you’re familiar with
Aslan’s ramblings however, then previous laments suffice as indication, and any reasonably educated person is presented with two rather obvious explanations for why Aslan feels so compelled to habitually misrepresent the facts: Aslan is either grossly misinformed, or he’s doing a terrible job hiding his attempts to smear and marginalize the only existing (albeit much smaller) and essential counterbalance to the intolerant Bronze age theocracy he sheepishly apologizes for. I think it’s reasonable to say the former, which would be convenient and explain a lot, is not the case, and the latter most certainly is.

Reza Aslan is the unwitting champion of anti-progress. He’ll argue otherwise passionately, but at the end of the day he clumsily overlooks he worked feverishly to indirectly legitimize inevitable and assured radical behavior based on the pretenses of improbability.

Giving a demagogue like Aslan (who apparently isn’t even above lying, or at least extremely distorting) a soapbox emboldens religious intolerance and ignorance. Further, I would submit giving Aslan a platform is also a move towards impeding progressive and enlightened societal values by the WP, more so than it is in the interest of promoting plurality/diversity, anyway. It’s unfortunate, and certainly something I’m surprised to see, even in the On Faith section of the site. I hope it’s something they reconsider a little more carefully in the future.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

” the most prominent characteristic of the new atheism—and what most differentiates it from traditional atheism—is its utter lack of literacy in the subject (religion) it is so desperate to refute”

No one can read Hitchens’ “god Is Not Great” and think that the author is unfamiliar with religion.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“Lack of literacy on thw subject ” ????  Are you kidding ? The problem with most theists is they don’t read their own stupid books

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I like to use a lot of long words, possibly a lot more than are actually necessary, to appear extra-intelligent.

I like to use long lists to fill space when writing a hollow article.

I like to use these lists to show just how knowledgeable I am on world religions and philosophy. This achieves two ends:
(i) I appear credible, unlike the New Atheists.
(ii) Followers of those religions like me as someone that respects their traditions and can join me against the atheists.

I have a book to sell.

Although you may have guessed that I know quite a bit about religion, I profess to know more than I actually do about the New Atheists. It’s okay; I’m betting that not many religious readers will have read their books so I can say what I like and they will love me.

This also means that the successful refutation of the term ‘fundamentalist atheist’ (from long ago) can be safely ignored. If I had even heard it in the first place.

Sam Harris must be lying when he says that he wishes to account for and get to the truth behind people’s transcendental experiences, so I’ll write as though he has not ever said anything even remotely like it. I will dedicate a large chunk of my article to this. After, he is not like the old, respectful Atheists. He argues too much. And too well. And too often. His cronies too, Peace Be Upon Them.

Reza Aslan.
Just another Theologian riding the coat-tails of the New Atheists’ success.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

The really audaciously dishonest part of Aslan’s rant is in how it skates right by the realization that Dennett’s Breaking the Spell is advocating (in far less cloudy terms) exactly what Aslan seems to be trying to seem to be getting at, at least in part: that there are fruitful ways of thinking about and studying religion, and they start with abandoning the dumb & unhelpful idea that these texts are “sacred” and demanding of reverential, kids-gloves treatment.

They’re in broad agreement on that point! And so, by the way, are the other “four horsemen,” but Aslan (like so many before him) can’t get past the hurt from, I dunno, Chris Hitchens’s cutting japes or something. But really it shows he wants it both ways: he wants to be admired in the faculty lounge for all the name-dropping but he still wants the loony believers to see him as an ally.

Pick a side, dipshit. Or at very least: don’t whine at others for not end-noting the books you think they should read while you’re in the very act of proving you’ve not read their books on the topics at hand.

The man is, at best, deeply confused.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Dale,

“Pick a side, dipshit. Or at very least: don’t whine at others for not end-noting the books you think they should read while you’re in the very act of proving you’ve not read their books on the topics at hand.”

If you think there are sides then your are a manichean with tendencies toward fundamentalism. Fundamentalism (Manicheanism) sees the world in and us vs them dialectic, and such thinking flourishes when people stop thinking for themselves and blindly accepting their worldview. The Dawkins quote answering his critics, who pointed out he did not read theology before he dismissed it, about equating theology to leperconology reveals a couple of aspects to Dawkins thinking. First, a strong antiintellecualism, dismissing something without studying it defines young earthers, alien abducted believers and birthers to name a few. Second, an lack of curiosity. The point Aslan was making is proved by you post: Us vs them, a rudeness betraying an intense hatred of things not understood, and they are stupid, this is the truth and all others who failed to understand this truth are fools, or worse, for Sam Harris, evil incarnate child abusing human waste.

What will you do with those stupid religious people when they choice not to give up their God? What will do with those stupid people who call on understand the religious people?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I get bored of this sort of thing so easily nowadays.

Some theologians think it is cleverer not to argue that it definitely is true, but that it might be and it is quite nice most of the time so lets carry on. Perhaps science has demolished absolute faith and that is all that’s left.

‘Then again, maybe the patterns of religious phenomenon signify nothing’

He wants widespread tendency to belief to either indicate the real possibility of deities, or be some type of Dawkin’s stereotype of nothingness. Either its real or indicates nothing. Well maybe it is indicative of underlying neurology and behaviour, you know, like genes and stuff???......

And what’s with stereotyping New Atheists as believing in nothing at all. I feel the rage coming again…

He is right on one point though. The New Atheists have done very well combating a type of fundamentalism. - though these type of apologists are pretending it is not necessary and is a weakness of the New Atheists. It is not. Look at the polls of the number of people who are lied to and end up accepting it.

We could do with branching out a little though. Plenty of other religious immoral’s happening down our roads. Even without fundamentalism (young earthism etc) they cannot help lying everyday to children in many other ways then making up some shocking reasons as to why they should be allowed to take the high ground. Lets branch out a little.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I think what we as human beings need is a humanistic and naturalistic outlook in life that is based on evidence and reason rather than overindulgence, glorification or rationalization of religious myths and superstitions (Universal Spirit, prana, chi’i, Holy Spirit, creator of this universe, divine origin of certain books, afterlife, etc) for which there is no evidence, no matter how comforting they might be.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

read Russell’s God and Religion, edited by Siekel. Very persuasive.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

(from: http://allusiveatheist.blogspot.com/2010/07/transcendent-bs.html )

The term “atheist fundamentalism” is either an oxymoron or redundant. Atheism is an absence of belief in gods(s). For purposes of this argument I would even allow a substitute definition: belief in the absence of god(s) (assuming we all understand the distinction). This definition is the sole and fundamental belief of atheism. What does the fundamentalist atheist believe that the non-fundamentalist atheist does not? Their belief is the same. Their interpretation of their belief is the same. If their behaviors differ it is not because one follows a more fundamental or literal interpretation of the sole belief. Attempting to liken verbose atheism to bible literalism is a disingenuous ad hominem distraction. In short, it’s dishonest.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Reza says he doesn’t write books about biology because he’s not a biologist. There is actually another, much more relevant, reason that he doesn’t write books about biology, and that is: biology isn’t spreading lies about religion.

If, in the future, the science of biology underwent some ghastly mutation and began doing that, in a big enough way, then Reza will be all over that shit with his very own biology book. The title of which might be: ‘The Bio Delusion’ or ‘The End of Evidence’ or ‘Breaking the Lucidity’ or ‘truth is not Great.’

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I’d like to echo some of the comments already made and highlight what is for me the most maddening of Aslan’s claims: that Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens suffer from an “utter lack of literacy on the subject (religion).”

I’ve read one of Aslan’s books (“No god but God”) and attended one of his talks promoting it.  Like everyone here I have many problems with his take on religion (especially Islam, of which he is an insufferable apologist), but I have never been tempted to question his knowledge on the subject.  Aslan is absurd to suggest that the “New Atheists” are merely uninformed.  To call Sam Harris, for instance, an ignoramus on the subject of religion is to severely (and perhaps disrespectfully) underestimate Harris’ argument.  To simply say “they don’t know what they’re talking about” is just not good enough.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

It really doesn’t take a Dawkins, Dennett, Harris or a Hitchens to dispute religion. Any 9 year old kid can do it. And, even with that, Aslan is out of his depth. This is why, IMO, he attacks the persons and not their arguments.

Jason01: those are some great titles that I really hope I’m not around to see!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I listened to Sam Harris debate Aslan on public radio before I had read this article.

Now I know why Reza only yelled the whole time.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.