Like the late, great Magnus Magnusson, I believe in starting what you finish. Unfortunately, I've had to take a temporary hiatus from the "Atheist Book Campaign" posts, due to the book launching today! I have to do lots of TV and radio interviews, write and rehearse an hour-long conference speech, prepare for a live debate and generally try and let as many people know about the book as possible.
Thank you so much for returning to this blog and for bearing with me - I promise to finish the ABC series soon. Until then, The Guardian published a news story in Monday's paper about The Atheist's Guide to Christmas:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/27/atheist-christmas-book
On Tuesday, I wrote a defence of atheists (including a section on the book) for Comment is free:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/sep/29/atheist-guide-christmas-religion
And today, Natalie Haynes has written a beautiful piece in The Times about the book:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6855865.ece
But as soon as this all calms down, I'll write the rest of the story. Thank you for your patience, and for all your support.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
I suppose I can see why you'd be a bit busy, so you're forgiven. Looking forward to the book hitting the bestseller lists this Sunday - it certainly deserves to.
Magnus Magnusson is dead? Oh no.
Wow! You are busy, but make sure you get a little time for yourself. I look forward to reading your book.
I love the Haynes article! :D
Will read your column eagerly. It's good to have you back here.
The 'Atheist's Guide" is awesome, and you can be very proud of it. Well done!
(PS: Please post links to your media appearances!)
My copy arrived from Amazon a couple of days ago. I am very impressed.
When I used to commission articles for magazines, I used to end up writing about a quarter of them myself, sometimes under pseudonyms, because so many people failed to come up with the goods - the fact that you've managed to get 42 essays from different contributors for the book is hugely impressive in its own right.
I've only had chance to read one of the pieces so far, and it'll be a little while before I get chance to read too many more, but I don't mind; that's a good thing, in a way, and part of the appeal of the book. I always preferred short stories over novels, because you can read them almost free of the constraints of time, and you can make your choice based on mood or on a whim much more than you can with a novel you have to stick with. Best of all, I always loved books full of short stories by different people (of which there aren't really enough anymore), because you really could always find something to read, in just in one book, whatever your mood and however much time you had. It's very rare that I'm able to do the same with non-fiction. With this book I really can.
Most non-fiction books tend to be full-length, in-depth looks at a subject. Even when they are composed of essays by different authors, they're often focused on a pretty narrow subject so can't really satisfy any given whim in quite the same way as a book of short stories. Your book, I think, does exactly that, so it's not like I'm in any rush to read all the pieces all at once (hope that doesn't make me sound unimpressed or ungrateful!). The whole point of it, I suppose, is that it shows how little atheism defines a person or their attitudes, so the variation in a book with atheism as the connecting theme (but which isn't about atheism exactly) can be really huge. I like that. I like that a lot. I wish people would do it for all sorts of things, but I don't think publishers would know how to sell books like that. Maybe you can show them, anon.
Though I haven't commented in a long time, I thought I would pop in and wish you success with the book Ariane.
Richard Dawkins is in Los Angeles (where I live now) for the next few days for an atheist convention and I wanted to go but they are charging way too much money for somebody just wanting to embarrass him about something in the Q and A ;-D.
Anyhoo, my real point here is that ever since last year, Pope Benedict has been railed against based on a very biased view of what he said in regards to condoms and HIV. What he actually said was very touching:
I would say that this problem of AIDS cannot be overcome with advertising slogans. If the soul is lacking, if Africans do not help one another, the scourge cannot be resolved by distributing condoms; quite the contrary, we risk worsening the problem. The solution can only come through a twofold commitment: firstly, the humanization of sexuality, in other words a spiritual and human renewal bringing a new way of behaving towards one another; and secondly, true friendship, above all with those who are suffering, a readiness — even through personal sacrifice — to be present with those who suffer. And these are the factors that help and bring visible progress.
The thing is, not only was what he said very poignant and not worthy of any rebuke, he was speaking with firm support from a leader in AIDS prevention research.
Here is an article with quotes from Edward C. Greene, head of the Harvard AIDS Prevention Reasearch Project:
Article
Harvard APRP
“The pope is correct,” Green told National Review Online Wednesday, “or put it a better way, the best evidence we have supports the pope’s comments. He stresses that “condoms have been proven to not be effective at the ‘level of population.’”
“There is,” Green adds, “a consistent association shown by our best studies, including the U.S.-funded ‘Demographic Health Surveys,’ between greater availability and use of condoms and higher (not lower) HIV-infection rates. This may be due in part to a phenomenon known as risk compensation, meaning that when one uses a risk-reduction ‘technology’ such as condoms, one often loses the benefit (reduction in risk) by ‘compensating’ or taking greater chances than one would take without the risk-reduction technology.”
Green added: “I also noticed that the pope said ‘monogamy’ was the best single answer to African AIDS, rather than ‘abstinence.’ The best and latest empirical evidence indeed shows that reduction in multiple and concurrent sexual partners is the most important single behavior change associated with reduction in HIV-infection rates (the other major factor is male circumcision).”
That's hardly the final word on AIDS prevention. Green is talking his way round an argument. How does he define 'level of population' and what use is it in determining risks and benefits? HIV isn't contracted by populations, it's contracted by individuals; those individuals using condoms have a massively reduced chance of infection. That being the case, how can it reliably be suggested that there's a causal link between use of condoms and occurrence of HIV? It can't. Factors are being correlated in a very tenuous manner. Which came first? Is condom use higher in those areas because AIDS is more prevalent and hence a greater danger? Are those areas the ones where condom use is now being encouraged to halt the spread? How long has condom use been high there? All of these questions are unanswered in his (and others') attempts to prove a causal link. It's just a poor argument.
The Pope's comments were and are worthy of plenty of rebuke.
"...the scourge cannot be resolved by distributing condoms; quite the contrary, we risk worsening the problem."
He's making the same baseless claim. How does distributing condoms worsen the problem? This is based on the same shaky logic and convenient assumption of a causal link where there is none. Expert opinion isn't overwhelmingly in favour of condom use because experts have some radical anti-Catholic, pro-promiscuity agenda, it's because any proper understanding of the nature of the HIV and AIDS epidemic clearly shows condoms as a vital part of prevention. Green's conclusion and the Pope's logic are just completely skewed. What the Pope said was repugnant; if he wants to encourage humanity, all power to him - he doesn't do so by encouraging people to forego a basic means of protecting their health simply on the basis of his ridiculous dogmatic prejudice.
That's hardly the final word on AIDS prevention.
I never said it was.....only that Pope Benedict's comments were not some "head in the sand" idiocy or thinly veiled sadism as they have been horribly misconstrued as.
Green is talking his way round an argument.
Well, to start off with, here is a column written by Greene further elucidating his position:
Link
How does he define 'level of population' and what use is it in determining risks and benefits? HIV isn't contracted by populations, it's contracted by individuals; those individuals using condoms have a massively reduced chance of infection. That being the case, how can it reliably be suggested that there's a causal link between use of condoms and occurrence of HIV? It can't. Factors are being correlated in a very tenuous manner.
No doubt it does work...in general (as Greene points out has happened in Thailand and Cambodia)...but it isn't working in Sub-Saharan Africa. The reason is that HIV was being spread through the sex trade in the previous countries but it is being spread by promiscuous behavior in the latter.
The causal link is between the availability of condoms and increased risk taking in sexual activities.
Which came first? Is condom use higher in those areas because AIDS is more prevalent and hence a greater danger? Are those areas the ones where condom use is now being encouraged to halt the spread? How long has condom use been high there? All of these questions are unanswered in his (and others') attempts to prove a causal link. It's just a poor argument.
Good questions, just because they are not answered in the first article I linked does not mean they are unanswerable. The column from Greene that I linked in this post has a link to a study from a journal (which I don't have access to) and references another journal entry which apparently gives the peer-reviewed data to justify these conclusions.
The Pope's comments were and are worthy of plenty of rebuke.
He's making the same baseless claim. How does distributing condoms worsen the problem? This is based on the same shaky logic and convenient assumption of a causal link where there is none.
It's not a baseless claim. He has peer reviewed data to back up his statements.
Expert opinion isn't overwhelmingly in favour of condom use because experts have some radical anti-Catholic, pro-promiscuity agenda, it's because any proper understanding of the nature of the HIV and AIDS epidemic clearly shows condoms as a vital part of prevention.
I don't see anyone disagreeing that condom use is very effective at prevention in some cases....some not. The naive myopia of throwing condoms at the AIDS epidemic in Africa isn't working. Every culture is different.
Green's conclusion and the Pope's logic are just completely skewed. What the Pope said was repugnant; if he wants to encourage humanity, all power to him - he doesn't do so by encouraging people to forego a basic means of protecting their health simply on the basis of his ridiculous dogmatic prejudice.
Well, you haven't provided any reason to jump to those conclusions. Whether Pope Benedict's statement was based in pure ridiculous Augustinian dogmatism (which I doubt) or genuine reflection on the issue (he is a brilliant man after all), or a bit of both is not known to me. What is known is that he was horribly misquoted and appears to have good empirical grounding for his beliefs.
Derek, I don't want to hijack the blog, and I tried to keep my last post short(ish, by my standard). The point is that expert opinion overwhelmingly disagrees with Green, and even more so with the Pope. Just Google on related topics (or use a few sideways clicks on Wikipedia starting from a topic like, say, 'AIDS prevention'; and also worth reading Edward C Green's own Wikipedia entries). Reading broadly, Green's conclusions are mostly supported by a handful of studies (often only one); his opponents rely on a great many more studies that contradict the findings that condoms increase promiscuity, or risky sexual behaviour. Cultural differences do apply, of course, but one of the profound cultural differences in the case of AIDS is the reluctance of Catholics in poor countries to use condoms precisely because of the Church's teaching. There's a chicken and egg element to the Catholicism-inspired notion that condoms don't work in Africa. I'd rather not post a ton of links on someone else's blog, or hijack it utterly, other than to ask you and others to read broadly - just Google the related topics and look for the balance of evidence and opinion. Edward Green would seem to me to be someone keen to challenge conventional wisdom simply because he can. All well and good when you find wisdom in need of challenging, and which will be exposed as mistaken by doing so; otherwise all you do is undermine, and I think that's what he's doing here.
I'm afraid I really do think the Pope's attitude is a head in the sand one. I appreciate your regard for his apparent humanity, and I have a lot more sympathy for your viewpoint as I've seen it expressed here than I do for his, but I disagree profoundly. Condoms do not make the problem worse.
Best of luck with all the interviews etc. You always come across well, I am sure the book sales will do great. Still not got it yet, but looking forward to reading it at some point
It's easy to be too busy when you're an active person.
Just got my copy. I'm only on page xii but laughing already. Not so much an alternative Good Book as a Much Better Book.
It looks great, will you be promoting it in the US? It would be great to see you on The Daily Show or Colbert.
Good luck Ariane!
I will be getting a copy for sure. I enjoy your articles in the Grauniad. They're very fresh and witty. Many thanks. Keep up the good work.
Thanks for this book/compilation A and the contributors. Nice idea with contributions from many persons (and something more up to date than Russell (Thanks to you too as well and too many others)). I will check it out asap even if I'm probably more agnostic than atheist.
Best wishes,
I
I'm just at the end of the book - thank you so much for putting it together, a great laugh, and an inspiration! No longer do we atheists need to be afraid to claim this status. I'm writing from Down Under (but do we really exist if the Earth is flat??). Time for the world to move on, and look back at religion as a quaint relic from the past, like the belief in a flat earth. Have a happy Christmas, and looking forward to more of the same in 2010! Jan
Helloa!
Sorry if this is obviously signposted elsewhere, but are you doing any promo readings from t'book?
I like to follow your blog, Ariane, but the pink text makes it difficult for my somewhat ancient eyes. How about a darker colour?
I'm sorry but I can't bring myself to read a book by an author who was a writer for the God awful "Two Pints..." and even worse "My Family".
Some things are unforgiveable.
Post a Comment