Why the scabrous tone?

Noah commented on the post below (Blog 9: heading for the fall). He asked about angels and quarks, but to begin with he quotes from the Qur’an.

...and reason with them in the most courteous manner. [16:125] he says.

He may mean that he intends to reason courteously, but I read it as a question about the tone of my blog. And it is a pugnacious little thing, isn’t it? Why oh why can’t I be nicer about religion?

This is why.

Firstly, in relation to the specific discussion in that post, I do get very annoyed when religious people hijack the language of science in an attempt to inject a kind of respectability into their claims which their methodology doesn't warrant.

In science, the evidence always comes first. The justification for scientific claims like the existence of quarks proceeds not from being a member of the science community, but from experimental evidence for them. Such claims are always made cautiously, and all scientific claims are prefaced by an implied 'unless an alternative theory is accepted which explains the data better'.

Religious claims are simply asserted. No claim made on that basis can be treated with the same degree of respect as a scientific claim, because it hasn't been subject to any proper process of verification. As I’ve often said about religion, if you must you can, but I do wish you wouldn’t abuse science at the same time.

Secondly, in relation to this particular blog, I emailed a comment in earlier, and I was very annoyed by Sardar's response (see first post on this blog).

Thirdly, my tone is not unusual in the world of free, open debate on any issue. Political blogs, for instance, are often far more unpleasant than I am. I fail to see why religion should expect any special privileges in this regard, and I choose my tone so as to make clear that I am not granting it any.

Fourthly, religions are always so very rude about us. For instance, the Koran says this. As for those who disbelieve in Our communications, We shall make them enter fire; so oft as their skins are thoroughly burned, We will change them for other skins, that they may taste the chastisement; surely Allah is Mighty, Wise” (Sura 4.56). And that’s before we’ve raised the subject of lewd women.

Sardar says two things about this kind of thing. Firstly he says that vengeance isn’t threatened against atheists, but against people who behave badly. Every time he tries to claim this, though, he is consistently handicapped by all the verses which say exactly the opposite. Like this one. Secondly he tries to claim it as metaphor. I’m not sure why I’m supposed to be comforted by this. Nonetheless, if insults up to and including threatening people with being burned for infinite amounts of time can be wished away by the use of the word metaphor, perhaps sensitive religious souls could try pretending I’m mocking them metaphorically as well.

Fifthly, I mainly write to be entertaining. It’s hard to be entertaining and respectful at the same time, and given the above quote I’m not particularly motivated to try.

Finally, in most cases religion is not voluntary. In the Islamic world in particular, most practicing Muslims are only so because they’ve been forcibly inducted into the Muslim community at an age when the mind is too young to form a coherent judgement. This is true in the case of Sardar, who chooses to describe the process in some detail, apparently not understanding the impression it leaves in the minds of people who haven't been subjected to such treatment.

You will notice that although I am constantly rude about Islam, I am never rude about Muslims in general (although I may well be rude about, and to, individuals). This is because in a very real sense It Actually Isn’t Their Fault. However, the very fact of religious indoctrination, practised everywhere from Kansas to Karachi, does mean we have to shout more loudly than we otherwise might, so we can be heard in places where less piercing voices might not reach.

When dealing with a world view which only survives by the indoctrination of the very young, which asserts the perfection of a book chock-full of moral atrocities, without evidence, which is constantly being quoted to justify the most outrageous acts, it seems almost insulting to be asked to moderate one's tone. However, we can afford to generous as well, so here's a little something for Noah. He ends with another quote. Say: "Have you ever considered that if all the water you have sunk down in the ground, who it is, that could bring you the clear-flowing water?" [67:30] Here, for his edification, are two short pieces about aquifers and water tables. Science: bringing understanding where previously there was only religion.