Atheists & Agnostics
Related: About this forumDavid Brooks, religious clown: Debunking phony Godsplaining from the New York Times’ laziest columni
David Brooks wants us atheists to appreciate his magic book and silly myths. Let's try some actual facts instead
One might deem it almost shameful to publish ones musings on the New York Times opinion page, the same page that continues to print, and quite shamelessly, the unapologetic scribbles of Iraq War cheerleader Thomas Friedman or the earnest yet befuddled lucubrations of useful Islamist idiot Nicholas Kristof. The first of these two columnists will probably never be called to account for the bloodshed and mayhem he has sanctioned in the Middle East. The second, I believe, means well, but by denouncing Islamophobia he shows he has accepted as sound a nonsense term that conflates faith and race and equates (well-founded) objections to Islam with prejudice against Muslims as people. And we should never forget that he, like Friedman, supported the Iraq War.
But what to make of Friedman and Kristofs seemingly milquetoast colleague, David Brooks? No shame attaches to him, though by publishing his pro-faith columns, he validates a stupendously (if surreptitiously) baleful Weltanschauung that should long ago have disappeared from our world. Brooks, in the face of mounting evidence, has striven tirelessly to bequeath credence to the dangerous notion, ever more antiquated and morally untenable, that believing in something asserted without evidence religion constitutes a virtue. That valuing faith above reason makes one a better person. That those who have shrugged off or laughed away the comically outlandish claims advanced by the Abrahamic creeds about our world and origins as a species are the ones with the explaining to do. Should he not be called to account?
more at Salon
http://www.salon.com/2015/03/15/david_brooks_religious_clown_debunking_phony_godsplaining_from_the_new_york_times_laziest_columnist/
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)It's funny that they spew out all the great stuff religion is supposed to do, and which it has yet to actually come up with. Religion never pays off, because it's a fantasy... one that adults should shrug off after childhood.
I would never be so obnoxiously egotistical as to insist people do what I do to be happy. I will make a suggestion tho':
Free yourself from ancient superstitions! KNOW, that anything supernatural does not exist. KNOW that the only thing you have to fear in a graveyard at night is an open grave, or someone, REAL, hiding behind a tombstone. KNOW that no good or evil...thing... is fighting over your soul...which doesn't exist. Nothing supernatural is out to get you.... or help you.
Freeing oneself of prehistoric baggage is so enlightening! You can use all that time you're wasting in church and Sunday School to go to the museum, or listen to music.... y'know ART! is there for you! Why society should think art and music is some tacked on luxury no one should pay for and you give up when you grow up, instead of religion being the thing to marginalize, is beyond me.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)with a heavy dose of ego.
Cartoonist
(7,320 posts)-
We have to wait until everyone on the planet belongs to the same religion for its prophecy to pass. I knew a guy who believed that all it would take is for the bible to be translated into every language on Earth.
bvf
(6,604 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)But it was a huge target.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)Quote:
"Brooks closes with what, to him, seems like a rousing call for enchanted secularism that puts emotional relations first and autonomy second . . . . responsive to the spiritual urge in each of us, the drive for purity, self-transcendence and sanctification."
I read this as Brooks calling for atheists to develop emotional, over-the-top tenets that govern their thinking.
onager
(9,356 posts)After wasting time and brain cells reading some of Brooks thru the years, I'm still amazed that he ever got a gig writing for the self-appointed "Paper of (Broken) Record." He's a humdrum writer and often incredibly clueless (as the OP shows).
Brooks clearly sees himself as the "Man Of Letters," lecturing us plebes from the solitude and comfort of his ivory tower where real life never intrudes.
Example that I'm still laughing about after several years - Brooks once compared Internet romances to the Victorian-era practice of sweethearts writing each other long, flowery love letters. And IIRC, predicted that all this Internet letter-writing would lead to more stable relationships IRL, etc. etc.
I think it was like, 1995 when I heard my first story about the Internet breaking up a marriage. But again, as the OP shows, Brooks is a master of ignoring any data that upsets his preconceived ideas.