The Stranger’s Case

Posted on by Llewen Leave a comment

circa 1600 CE, credited to William Shakespeare

Grant them removed, and grant that this your noise
Hath chid down all the majesty of England;
Imagine that you see the wretched strangers,
Their babies at their backs and their poor luggage,
Plodding to the ports and coasts for transportation,
And that you sit as kings in your desires,
Authority quite silent by your brawl,
And you in ruff of your opinions clothed;
What had you got? I’ll tell you: you had taught
How insolence and strong hand should prevail,
How order should be quelled; and by this pattern
Not one of you should live an agèd man,
For other ruffians, as their fancies wrought,
With self same hand, self reasons, and self right,
Would shark on you, and men like ravenous fishes
Would feed on one another.

[…]Say now the king,
As he is clement if th’offender mourn,
Should so much come too short of your great trespass
As but to banish you, whither would you go?
What country, by the nature of your error,
Should give you harbor? Go you to France or Flanders,
To any German province, to Spain or Portugal,
Nay, anywhere that not adheres to England,
Why, you must needs be strangers: would you be pleased
To find a nation of such barbarous temper,
That, breaking out in hideous violence,
Would not afford you an abode on earth,
Whet their detested knives against your throats,
Spurn you like dogs, and like as if that God
Owed not nor made not you, nor that the elements
Were not all appropriate to your comforts,
But chartered unto them, what would you think
To be thus used? This is the strangers’ case;
And this your mountainish inhumanity.

The “Prime Directive” of Atheism

Posted on by Llewen Leave a comment

For many atheists their “Prime Directive”, for lack of a better way of saying it, is debunking. They want to “debunk” all the “religious nonsense”. When they are presented with narratives that include the “supernatural”, “miraculous”, “spiritual” or “mystic”, their first instinct is to prove that the narrative is a false narrative, that there is a “logical explanation” for it. That “logical explanation” most often includes the generous application of scorn, ridicule and their own personally acceptable application of pseudo science.

“I can’t explain that.” is never an acceptable response. Neither is “I don’t know.” There is always an explanation, no matter how far fetched their explanation of what they view as far fetched may be.

I am an atheist, but I am not “that kind” of atheist. For me “debunking” is not the “Prime Directive”. For me honesty is the “Prime Directive”. I try to avoid applying ridicule and scorn without being absolutely certain that it is an appropriate response. I am perfectly comfortable with conclusions that include, “I have no idea.” “I can’t explain that.” “I simply do not have an answer for that.” and “I don’t know.”