"Canada's Most Renowned Philosopher" and Atheist Bus Ads

(This is cross-posted from my Philosophy Blog, to give it greater exposure)

Charles Taylor's comments about the Atheist Bus Ad campaign strike me as being just as pathetic as he says the campaign itself is.

"Putting things on buses, as though that's going to make people somehow change their view about God, the universe, the meaning of life and so on," scoffed Taylor, a defender of religious faith and the recent winner of philosophy's two most prestigious international prizes following the 2007 publication of A Secular Age, his latest acclaimed critique of modern life.

"A bus slogan! It's not likely to trigger something very fundamental in anybody," Taylor told the magazine [Philosophy Now], the most widely read philosophy publication in the English language. "This new phenomena is puzzling -- atheists that want to spread the 'gospel,' and are sometimes very angry."

This is a complete strawman. The bus ads are not intended to "make people somehow change their view about God, the universe, the meaning of life" nor "trigger something very fundamental". They are intended to raise the profile of atheists in the public sphere, a public sphere that contains religion, religious ideas, and the expression thereof. And certainly, most who have ridden public transit have seen advertisements of a religious nature. I know I have. So to see an advertisement of atheism is to see that yes, non-religious non-believers exist, and some of them would like you to take note of that fact and consider their view seriously, just as any religious group with a bus ad would like you to note that they exist and that you should take their view seriously.

(One might take issue with the specific wording of the ads, but I don't think that is the point here. Taylor seems to be objecting to the very idea of such ads).

As for his assertion that these are atheists who "want to spread the gospel", this again is very poor. Does Professor Taylor feel that anyone who wishes to assert and argue for ideas that they hold to be true is wanting to "spread the gospel"? Or does he think that if one has such ideas, they should keep them to themselves? I suppose Professor Taylor's many books and papers are not an example of him "spreading the gospel". So what's different about atheists? As I'm sure is the case with Taylor's books and papers, most atheists will tell you that they have good reasons for their views, and they will happily explain them to you. In fact, they most certainly do not want you to take their word for it--they want you to understand the arguments and see for yourself if you don't think they are right. "Spreading the gospel", on the other hand, is a kind of shouting from the rooftops, a "believe what I believe and everything will be alright!", and saying that this is what atheists are doing is to completely misrepresent them.

Professor Taylor's comments are entirely beside the point, and bespeak a very poor understanding of what constitutes a good argument. One would hope that "Canada's Most Renowned Philosopher" would be better at avoiding simple argumentative fallacies that even a second-year undergraduate in philosophy would know not to make.

Insert Cliche Mark Twain Quote Here

I realise that I have completely neglected this blog; but I hope to change that, as I am re-committing to updating it more regularly, as well as my new philosophy blog, Perspicuity. One might be sceptical about my ability to update two blogs when I became so negligent about just the one, but one would have to be pessimistic to think that. I am not (at the moment) a pessimist--at least regarding my own abilities.

Stay tuned for the resumption of regular programming.

Um, what?

Wow. Canadian politics hasn't been this exciting in a long time. At the moment I'm most intrigued to see what the Governor General says to the PM tomorrow morning; she has a very tough decision to make re: proroguing parliament. But this post is not intended to be a comment on the situation. I may make one later, once it's clearer what is going to happen.

My point in this post is something different. In this Globe article, I read:

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce last night issued a scathing attack on all parties for not making the economy a greater priority.

"With so much at stake, all members of Parliament must set partisan manoeuvring aside and focus instead on measures to bolster investor and consumer confidence and restore economic growth," the business group, with 175,000 members, said in a statement.

Led by former Progressive Conservative cabinet minister Perrin Beatty, the chamber called on the government to introduce economic stimulus measures before a scheduled Jan. 27 budget.

Uh...isn't this exactly what the coalition is trying to do? That is, toss out a Conservative government that, in playing partisan games and ignoring the real economic issues with its Fiscal Update, clearly showed they weren't planning on taking any measures "to bolster investor and consumer confidence and restore economic growth", and create a stimulus package that will. And furthermore, to do it before January 27th. So what's the problem here? The Canadian Chamber of Commerce wants a government that won't fool around, but instead act quickly to put in place an economic stimulus package. This is exactly what the coalition wants to do; bring several parties together in order to help the economy, and thus Canadians. By their own words, they should be supporting the coalition.

American Election Prediction

Well, here's my prediction for the US election tomorrow; hopefully I do better than I did on my Canadian election prediction!

I've made my sympathies known on this blog already, so I'll just close this post by saying that I'll be watching tomorrow night in excitement, and that I look forward to seeing Barack Obama in the White House.

(Generate your own prediction map: http://www.270towin.com/)

Post-Election Post

Well, my prediction was incorrect, but it is easy for one to under-estimate the extent to which one's party will lose. But as I always say, sometimes it has to get worse before it gets better.

As for my specific predictions, I was 3 for 4; Trudeau did win Papineau, the NDP did take Edmonton-Strathcona, and the Liberals got 5 seats in BC. My other prediction is one I am only too happy to be wrong about - Gerard Kennedy did in fact win in his riding, much to the benefit of the Liberal caucus.

I had planned on giving a spiel on the future of the Liberals and specifically Dion as leader, but as usual, Whig has done a much better job than I ever could. Check it out.

My Election Prediction

Seeing as everyone is getting in on the prediction action, I thought I'd make mine public. It's not that detailed, but I do have a few notes to go with it.

CON 132
LIB 88
NDP 34
BQ 52
IND 2

- Gerard Kennedy will probably lose, which is very unfortunate for him, especially given how well liked he is in that area and how good it'd be to have him in the Liberal caucus. It won't be a huge loss, but I do think he will lose.

- Trudeau will win in Papineau.

- I'd love to see the NDP candidate take Edmonton-Strathcona; as much as I dislike the NDP I think it'd be excellent to break up Alberta's deep blue sea. If the Libs and Greens in that riding realize they can oust a conservative by voting NDP, they may just do it. It'll be interesting to see if they do.

- The Liberals will get 4 seats in BC, maybe 5.

How will Harper react to a barely increased minority, and how soon after the election will Dion resign? And will the next Liberal leadership race result in more bickering and infighting, or will they mostly unite behind a single candidate in order to preserve stability? It's going to be an interesting night, and things will only get more interesting in the months to come.

Presumed Consent Organ Donation

There is an NDP private-members bill in Ontario that wants to make Ontarians automatic organ donors unless they opt out. Whatever the benefits of such a system might be (it is obviously meant to increase organ availability), one cannot ignore the fact that it's a fairly egregious breach of personal liberty. Not to mention the fact that I highly doubt it would stand up to a court challenge; section 7 of the charter gurantees security of the person and can only be waived "in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice", and it is clear that in this case those principles do not come into play.

Frankly this sort of thing is pretty typical of the NDP mindset; that is, indifference, even antagonism, towards personal liberty if it serves their social goals.

Obama Speaks About Cartoon

Barack Obama has finally spoken about The New Yorker cover cartoon on Larry King Live:

"Well, I know it was the New Yorker's attempt at satire. I don't think they were entirely successful with it. But you know what, it's a cartoon, Larry, and that's why we've got the First Amendment. And I think the American people are probably spending a little more time worrying about what's happening with the banking system and the housing market, and what's happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, than a cartoon. So I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about it."

Fair enough. I'm just thankful he didn't go calling it 'offensive' like some in his camp did; he understands enough not to, it seems, and that's good. Obama also commented on how the false rumours he is a Muslim or got sworn into office on the Qur'an, because they are portrayed as being negative things against him, are insulting to Muslims:

"You know, this is actually an insult against Muslim Americans, something that we don't spend a lot of time talking about. And sometimes I've been derelict in pointing that out. You know, there are wonderful Muslim Americans all across the country who are doing wonderful things. And for this to be used as sort of an insult or to raise suspicions about me I think is unfortunate. And it's not what America is all about."

This is absolutely true and something that is barely talked about. These falsehoods were talked about ad nauseum in the media, but much rarely was there a comment about how xenophobic and insulting they are as supposed negatives about Obama.

Finally, it is worth pointing out that the article that I got this from, both in text and title, attributes the above quote as a comment on the The New Yorker cartoon, when in reality it is clearly directed not towards that but towards the false rumours themselves, of which the cartoon is satire.

The Politics of Fear

The New Yorker's recent cover cartoon, depicting Barack and Michelle Obama as a Muslim and a terrorist, respectively (in a decidedly anti-American Oval Office), is clearly satire; if one is aware of the magazine's political sympathies, then given the picture's ostentatiousness, anyone who doesn't think so is not using their brain very well.

But the magazine could have made things much easier on itself. The cartoon's title is "The Politics of Fear"; but you wouldn't know that from looking at it, because it only appears on the inside pages. All the condemnation (from both the Obama camp and McCain), probably unjustified, could have easily been avoided by that simple title. Or, if not avoided, at least more plausibly answered. As it stands, without the title it seems more like a cheap way to gain publicity and sell magazines.

The satirical intention was clear to me from the start, but I must admit, it fell flat. Why? Context, I think. The cartoon appears on the front cover of the magazine, the only other words visible being the magazine's name and the price. What are we to make of this? If you know anything about The New Yorker and all the lies being spread about the Obamas, you can probably guess the intention. But what if you don't? I'm not sure how effective the satire is when baldly placed on the front cover with no explanation. As I intimated above, simply printing the title of the cartoon on the cover would have provided enough context and helped the satire to suceed better than it has.

We are used to seeing political cartoons on the inside of magazines and newspapers, and in that way we get all the context we need. When one gets slapped on the front cover, however, we need to be given an indication of intent. This is the reason why the cartoon is drawing condemnation--completely unexplained, the cartoon's possible interpretations are far too fluid. As I said to begin with, if one is familiar with The New Yorker, you can guess at the intention, and you know that they often have satirical cartoons on the cover. But while the cartoon deftly and rightly skewers the falsehoods being spread about the Obamas, it fails to make a distinct impression devoid of a suitably satirical context. One should not have to guess at intention, and a simple title would have made the magazine's statement both more effective and less controversial. While not offensive, it is poorly executed.

New Liberal

All Liberals in Alberta need to read this:

New Liberal