A short but confrontational post made yesterday afternoon by Matthew Nisbet at Framing Science has quickly attracted the attention of both PZ and Jason Rosenhouse, and one has to surmise that Nisbet knew just what he was inviting when he wrote it.
Matthew asks:
"What about the atheists who are artists, poets, writers, or cultural critics? ... does their atheism have the same legitimacy as 'science atheists'?"
Talk about a non sequitur. Since when is the (epistemological or philosophical) "legitimacy" of atheism predicated on anything other than the evidence for deities or lack thereof?
A philanthropist, a skinhead, an artist, a sexual sadist, a physicist, a person who donates 40 hours of volunteer time a week to the needy, and a noisy racist all have the same reasons for embracing atheism: None of that evidence is forthcoming. How this relates to how each conducts his or her own life is irrelevant by any standard.
Are we being asked to acknowledge that asshole atheists exist? Well, I'll get right on that one myself, just as soon as I'm done figuring out whether H2O can be considered moist and whether drakes have the ability to propel themselves across the surfaces of ponds without sinking.
In the context in which Nisbet mentions "legitimacy," he appears to be referring to the degree to which the general public is inclined to accept or tolerate the atheistic utterances or viewpoints of a particular person or group. If that's the case, he's talking about something entirely divorced from meaningful dialogue.
Obviously, atheists have historically had difficulty having their views accepted; if this were not true, books like The End of Faith, The God Delusion and God Is Not Great would either not exist or would be sales flops. Nisbet seems to think that the solution is for godless people to either shut up or find a less threatening way to advance their ideas. The first choice is laughably submissive and counterproductive and the second impossible by definition, so I think it's safe to say Matthew has shat on his keyboard today, as his interlocutors have been happy to point out in the comments to his post.
Comments
"Talk about a non sequitur. Since when is the (epistemological or philosophical) "legitimacy" of atheism predicated on anything other than the evidence for deities or lack thereof?"
Think about the books putting forth atheism-as-reason. Read PZ's journal. Read the comment he was _responding_ to. It is locally treated, in fact, as if atheism = logic, reason, _sanity_. (God Delusion? Again. Atheism as sanity, religion as insanity.) That is the _overarching_ way in which it is all presented around here. _You_ may disagree with that, but a very, very, very large number of your allies and friend atheists explicitly do not. Ler's get some solid quotes. First from Nisbett's post's comment thread, then PZ's response comment thread.
"But we're [Atheists are] good at science. A sort of natural ability." - Greg Laden (But what about people who aren't? Not atheists?)
"Bloody hell. With "scientists" like this [Nisbet], who needs religion?" - ben (Scientists who disagree = Traitor! Excellent.)
"WTF is a "School of Communications" anyways? And why would anybody want to go there?" - CalGeorge (in PZ's comments thread) (Yes, only scientists matter!)
And the most obvious: "In any event, Framing is against Atheistic "beliefs." It may cause us to deny our rationality. That would just make us like any other group of delusional yahoos." - Greg Laden, in PZ's comment thread.
We have a WINNER. Atheism = Rational. Religion = Insane. Social sciences = Evil. Science = Good.
That is EXACTLY where Nisbet is pulling this from. And exactly while as much as I think he sucks at saying things oft-times (and the irony of that is not lost to me), he's pinpointing things that the atheist movement _needs to see_.
-Mecha
Posted by: Mecha | June 29, 2007 2:18 PM
Yes, and your point is...? The thing is they're right, unless you're about to pull some evidence for a magic man in the sky out of your pocket -- belief in religion is irrational.
Although, actually, I disagree with CalGeorge. There's nothing wrong with a school of communication. I also don't see any claims that the social sciences are evil. Are you trying to infer that people in the social sciences are less rational than those in math and science departments?
Posted by: PZ Myers | June 29, 2007 2:50 PM
Mecha,
I am sorry to be the one to break this to you, but belief in a god is not rational. Rational means taking account of the evidence and following a chain of logical reason to reach a conclusion. There is no evidence for god(s). Of course this need not be a problem for theists. I know of several who will admit that they cannot support their belief in god using reason or evidence.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 29, 2007 3:04 PM
Maybe the problem in discussing atheism and theism is that word God.
I bet if a rational being came up with an hypothetical mathematical force or equation that explains reality, we'd all applaud the concept, because the concept wouldn't be anthropomorphised (or 'phized if you like).
Atheists are a haughty lot, as are most scientists, and physicists in particular.
They (the whole bunch) loathe the idea that something may be greater than they are. It's all a matter of ego, not intelligence or reason.
Does God exist? Who nows? Who cares? The concept may be alive for some but the thing itself surely isn't -- as far as our practical existence is concerned.
RR
Posted by: Rich Reynolds | June 29, 2007 3:37 PM
Rich,
The difference is that people who come up with theories to explain how the universe works are called scientists, and the difference between science and religion is that in order for your ideas to be accepted in science you need to show they are valid by producing evidence, whereas in religion you are allowed to get away with say it is written in ancient text so it must be true, or that you have been appointed by god and are infallible. Science is very good at explaining reality. Religion has a dismal track record.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 29, 2007 3:42 PM
PZ (and to Penfold the Condescending, for a moment): I'm not going to argue whether it is or not because 1) I don't want to get sidetracked 2) I clearly don't have that proof, if I did, I wouldn't be agnostic 3) I'm sure no matter which I said, it'd get tied down in that discussion (and I've got a lot of stuff to say already.)
But that's good, because that argument is (somewhat) irrelevant to the framing argument (framing is about word association and mindsets.) And I can't speak for Nisbet exactly (I ain't he, as it were) but I'm going to try to phrase it how I see it.
The current popular frame (you can generally substitute 'frame' with 'mindset'), on Scienceblogs and other places, of 'Religion = Irrational and Bad' is something which tries to set up an explicit conflict between 'good' (science/atheism) and 'evil' (irrational/religion), and it's one that you espouse. 'If you believe in religion, you are irrational. Wrong. Stupid.' Not just the power structures are bad, or the abuse groups are bad. Religious belief? Bad.
Here's where it breaks from atheism-as-civil-rights. That is starkly different from every other equality movement, even most vocal ones, which _just want true equality_. So _nonequality_ is bad, but that doesn't mean that being in the majority is bad on its own. That is a _self caused_ PR problem. Not just based on anti-atheist sentiment. If you're going to call everyone who is religious irrational, and say that irrational is bad, then you're causing a PR problem. If you're going to then say that Atheism as the crux of a civil rights problem, with Atheism defined as good, and any religious belief as evil... do you see the problem there? Religion, and any religious belief, and any religious _believer_, becomes _swiftly_ equated with a desire to overthrow the constitution, kill Jews, curb gays, lynch blacks, and force women to have abortions. (Let's not talk about what damage the insane religious are doing to themselves on that front. 9_9) Congratulations, belief in god makes you evil.
Note that in contrast, as I bring up in various places, feminists don't say 'MEN SUCK' as a matter of policy (they might say it as a momentary 'argh'.) Feminists _do_ say, and act, over and over, with 'The power structure, the patriarchy, causes inequality. It's not the people. It's the power structure.' Imagine if that were the frame that the biggest atheists in the public eye used instead. They could point at their arguments and go, honestly, 'We don't want to obliterate religion. Religion isn't evil. The social structure which makes religion normative and good and the only way to be moral is bad. We want the freedom to be atheist, or any religion, without being treated like we're bad or unnatural.' Is that easy? No. Will it get a large audience? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe it'll have the same problems that moderate religious have in getting a national voice. But it's a choice.
They're two different frames. Two different groups of word associations. I realize that you and others point out specific examples of people being stupid in the name of religion to try to point out the power structure/commonness of it. And that's totally awesome, because that's consciousness raising and fighting bad actions where they happen. But when one then drops back to 'Religion = Irrational and Wrong', they setting up a PR problem of their own choice. And I think it's a choice Nisbet disagrees with. And I think perfectly reasonable people can actually differ the choice, and believing that one is better than the other.
The title of the God Delusion itself specifically goes towards that association, you know? Even if he never goes into the politics, he's set the frame, the way for people to think about it. The core of the argument, the title of the thesis, is that _believing in religion is a mental disease_. How's a religious person supposed to respond to that? What do we _do_ to people with diseases in this country, let alone MENTAL diseases? How do we treat the believed-to-be-insane? Do you think they, in the land of religious freedom, want to be locked in asylums because of their belief? That's the _frame_ (if not the beliefs) that the words set up. And it's a frame that will clash with people on issues that aren't issues of equality. It almost becomes 'It's atheists or religious! Someone's going down! Round one, FIGHT!' (I am not saying anyone specifically believes that train of thought, but people don't have to believe a train of thought to feel like something is attacking us.) And that is bad PR. It's a bad way to approach _anyone_ (it may well be good for allowing other atheists to stand up, but that's, again, a separate argument, as well as what would be the _best_ way.)
The abstract contrast to this off the top of my head, from a PR standpoint (which I'm certain SOME people use, so please don't go into 'But atheists do all of this') is a frame where one goes for equality but _passionately_. Vocally, even. Associate atheism (and other religions) with freedom of choice, freedom of the mind to be where it wants. Associate atheism with good acts, with freedom (atheists aren't oppressive) and fairness, _without giving a flying fuck_ about religion or the religious except where it, or they, fuck with freedom and fairness. Those are positive social frames which _aren't_ being exploited significantly. Dawkins is getting the word out. That's great. But how about, say, putting out a _specifically atheist_ book on positive morality that doesn't reference god at all? And getting that into the NYT Top 10 Bestsellers List? Getting that a passionate spokesperson? It is entirely possible to fight anti-religious-freedom stupidity all the way, without for a second equating 'being religious' with 'irrational/stupid/discrimintory', and entirely possible to make atheism, in the public view, more than an attempt to tear down religion. You don't have to be silent. I, personally, would _never_ espouse _having_ to be silent. (Look at me defend Zuska all the time!) But that doesn't mean that every way of talking is equally good. Or every radical action is equally right. There are always choices to make.
As to the social science thing, no, I don't, but CalGeorge seems to think it's not worth anything! So does ben. This is a bit interpretive, but Ben's statement explicitly tied Nisbet, with his ideas of framing (and the quotes around "scientist") to 'not science' (and as bad as religion, which around here, is equated with irrational, as you so clearly stated.) Framing as denying rationality? Framing (well established social science concept) = irrational. Those aren't the opinions I'm espousing, but they're sure as hell what is being implied, if not stated, by the commenters.
And if you look at the comments in Nisbet's thread (and a number of yours, over the years), people DO say specifically that 'science/math = rational = atheism = good'. (The social science as not worth anything idea isn't as strongly associated, thankfully, but it is trotted out from place to place, and not fought as much as it should be.) Which leaves, as he points out, an artist or poet who is atheist out in the framing cold. What are they? How do they belong? Where do they _fit_? It doesn't seem as if they fit in here. They may not be 'rational' or 'logical' enough for your tastes. And that's a PR (and equality) problem of its own.
-Mecha
Posted by: Mecha | June 29, 2007 4:04 PM
Nah, you've got it all wrong.
The comparable association to "religion is bad" is not as you've made it to be. The civil rights movement had its own strong negative "frames": bigotry is bad. You should be ashamed to treat black people as less than human. Bigots are illiterate, uneducated hicks. You can argue that it can be carried to unwarranted extremes — all white southerners shouldn't be stigmatized, obviously — but it worked. People are embarrassed if caught saying something that could be interpreted as racist. To pretend that it was all about positive statements of equality is a rewriting of history.
And similarly, we ornery atheists are uncompromising in labeling religion as bad, but it's not as if we say there is no redemption, or that every single person who goes to church is damned to ignorance for all eternity (try switching that one around, though: the other side does not return the favor, and clearly thinks we're going to hell). It's not hard to just concede science to science and keep god out of it, or to confine the praying and proselytizing to the church rather than the voting booth.
You're also trying too hard to pin a dismissive attitude towards social sciences and the humanities on atheists. I don't feel that way; Dawkins has a long section in his book on the literary value of the bible; Hitchens isn't even a scientist. So? I promise when I'm Emperor of the World that I will increase funding to English teachers, OK?
Posted by: PZ Myers | June 29, 2007 4:22 PM
First, thanks for the insult.
Second, have you actually read "The God Delusion" because in it Dawkins explains his use of the term delusion and the possible connotations with mental illness. Suffice to say that if have read the book you clearly did not read that part, and if you have not then you have no idea what you talking about.
Now you may not like us calling belief in a god irrational, but that is your problem. It quite simply is NOT rational and no amount of blathering about PR by you will change that. As I have pointed out you already there are theists who admit their beliefs are not rational. If other theists have a problem coming to terms with that, that is for them to work out. I will not stop calling belief in god irrational just because it upsets you.
Nisbet's comments about atheistic poets is just him being silly. Atheism is the view there is no god. How that would preclude someone being a poet I am not sure. Certainly a number of poets during the great war had no problem not believing in god.
I suspect your problem, and it certainly seems to be Nisbet's, is that you do not use the word "rational" to mean to the same thing the rest of us do. Rationalism to me is accepting things based on upon there being evidence to support them, and using logic to arrive at positions based upon what you have accepted. When I challenged Nisbet on this he went all "define what you mean by it" on me.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 29, 2007 4:24 PM
Mecha --
Your second comment is estimated to be the fourth longest in the history of the blogosphere and for that alone I commend you.
With respect to your first comment, I will say that although observations such as "Who the hell goes to communications school anyway?" are noncontributory, this and the other comments you cited were irritated reactions to Nisbet himself, not typical expressions of atheism per se.
Atheism itself is an unassailably reasonable position. No evidence for deities (and circumstantial counterevidence), hence no reason to believe. Belief in deities is not reasonable, which is why word like "faith" are part and parcel of the whole freak show to begin with. This of course doesn't mean that atheists are never seen hurling around insults or unreasonable statements, but Nisbet isn't focusing just on these; he's complaining about the whole gamut of indictments of religion, including the ineluctably level-headed ones propounded by the likes of Dawkins et al.
If you want to see the kind of mentality people of reason are confronting, look at this post and, in particular, these comments. Belief in evolution/godlessness = no human purpose = OK to murder. And although it's a nice fantasy to imagine that this kind of thinking is primarily confined to states in which governors suggest the equivalent of doning loincloths and headdresses and dnacing in mad circles during times of extreme drought, such is not the case. Being nice to these faithbots won't accomplish a damned thing.
Posted by: Kevin Beck | June 29, 2007 5:10 PM
PZ: Right, but there is a difference between 'Bad actors are bad' (Bigots) and 'Good actors who hold bad beliefs due to society are bad (Religious people) and 'Societies that perpetuate bad beliefs are bad' (Religious structures which maintain that atheism = bad.) And most minority theories make that very clear. (Bigot vs Men vs Patriarchy, to use the feminist example.) You, and most 'ornery atheists' (is that a term you prefer? I don't really want to use a term you don't like for yourselves), don't. You make very clear that any religious belief is bad (again. The complete equivalence, over and over, of rational = good, superior, versus irrational = bad, inferior. One wonders why, again and again, I am told that I _have_ to say that religious are irrational (and inferior) when it's not actually part of the discussion!)
I mean, I realize what you're _trying_ to say, but that's not what you're actually saying, generally, and it is the same with a number of atheist activists around here. That's not the frames and mindsets that are being used, and that's not the message that's getting across. Framing theory is a communications theory. It talks about _how people communicate_. And it is perfectly valid to, in fact, say that someone communicates poorly.
And in your second paragraph, you go again demonizing. Do you think that _every_ religious thinks that you're going to hell? 'Flipped around' it's not so accurate after all. And your 'redemption' is nothing but absolute conversion. 'Think as we do or you suck.' That is _also_ a bad PR decision, especially in a country which believes in freedom of religion, at least in theory.
You're absolutely right that neither letting science alone, or keeping religion from being used as a political hammer is hard. But that's not what we're arguing here. We're discussing whether the tactics are bad PR here (since I don't argue the discrimination point.) I'm not sure why you went on this sidenote, other than as trying to convince me of something I already believe for the most part.
I may be seeing too much of the attack on the social sciences in things. But I am seeing it in this overall discussion in some parts, and I quoted to you examples. Your attempt to use specific examples to prove that it's not part of the environment around here falls flat. If you want to work towards 'proving' that it's not part of the environment around here, I would personally suggest you go back on your own blog and tell the guy which said that being a social scientist was a bullshit degree that you don't agree. Or something. Because people getting away with it doesn't really help your case that it's not part of the environment.
-Mecha
Posted by: Mecha | June 29, 2007 5:28 PM
Kevin: Yeah, well, I have a bad habit of rambling. I'm glad it wasn't taken too badly. (Only _fourth_? Daaaaamn.)
I realize they're not atheist beliefs, but they _are_ tied into the general science/atheism confluence around here. The belief in the superiority of science/atheism/'reason'. It's a very common geek 'ism', as it were ('English? Humanities? Pfaugh.') and so it, inadvertantly or no, gets mixed up in the argument. And as such, they become part of the frame. (Using "scientist" and equating it to 'religion', in fact, is _explicitly_ equating social scientists with the unreasonableness of religion.) As I said to PZ, it's possible I'm responding to this one overmuch.
I'm fine with atheism being reasonable. It's when anything that isn't in agreement becomes _unreasonable_ that problems arise (which is framing), and when 'having any religious beliefs = irrational = bad' comes into being, that the frame becomes bad for PR. Which is exactly what he is saying. And exactly what has happened. Again. 'The God Delusion.' It, sadly, does not matter what the book says, because what is told to the religious, again, and again, and AGAIN, is 'Religion = Crazy = Bad.' That's framing, that's societal meaning. It does not matter necessarily what you say, at times, it matters _how you say it_. Look at how many arguments on scienceblogs involve defining vague terminology. Why? Because _how you say something affects what it means to people_.
It has been brought up before about the difference between 'religious freedom for everyone, including atheists' and 'trying to make everyone pro-science atheists.' The first is actually civil rights/discrimination. The second? Isn't. PZ has generally aimed for the second. And as such? PR problems, as single religious are treated as evil unless they convert.
And yes, I'm familiar with the kind of sheer stupidity that people are combatting. I'm not just a fly-by commenter at scienceblogs. ;) And you are right, fighting _specific egregious examples_ is perfectly cool. And great. And I say so in my giant post, IIRC. That's not now, nor do I believe it has ever been, the issue. The issue is in how one engages the people who believe in religious equality, but don't understand that atheism isn't a threat, is valid, whatever. (Much like feminists must attack the bad actors, while trying to convince people who say they believe in equality to _actually believe in equality.) You can absolutely be aggressive. I support many aggressive feminists, and other minority rights types. But that _does not mean_ that holding a position such as 'Someone with religious belief irrational and bad' is going to get you any friends. Adding 'Atheism is a civil rights issue' so that now someone with religious beliefs is ALSO an inherent bigot? Even worse. From a PR point of view.
There's so many people mixing up so many different arguments in so many places it makes my head hurt. I only hope that I'm managing to keep things mostly straight.
-Mecha
Posted by: Mecha | June 29, 2007 5:42 PM
So the idea is that atheists are supposed to try to link arms with religious moderates and join them in singing Kumbaya, even if we think their beliefs--as opposed to their actions--are as indefensible as a Bible thumper's. Only in this way we can forge an alliance capable of defending our schools from creationists, our government from extremists, and the winshields of our cars from copies of The Watchtower.
Hm. Doesn't that seem a bit...condescending?
It's often said that all the bigmouthed atheists are "only preaching to the choir." I don't think so. Full-on atheists comprise a minority of the population, as do those who define themselves as religiously fundamentalist (albeit their minority is far larger and louder than ours). Subtract those two groups from the whole, and what's left? Why, religious moderates. That's the majority; ergo that's the group to try to convince of (if you're a rationalist) or convert to (if you're immoderately religious) the supremacy of your point of view.
All those purchased copies of The God Delusion, Letter to a Christian Nation, God is Not Great, and so on...could it be that only hard-core, outspoken atheists are buying them? Perhaps for one another?
The numbers say "no."
Sure, choir members are among the purchasers. No doubt a few of the highly religious are, too, in order to "know thine enemy." But moderates have to be buying (and maybe even reading) the bulk of these books. Why would they do that if they don't see some validity in the atheist argument? Perhaps "moderate" is, in some cases, synonymous with "uncertain."
Keep up the pressure, I say. Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Hitchens, PZ, et. al....pour it on.
Posted by: NeverTheTwain | June 29, 2007 6:53 PM
Ya mean something like this?
Posted by: Bill from Dover | June 29, 2007 7:21 PM
Yep!
Posted by: NeverTheTwain | June 29, 2007 9:11 PM
Mecha,
No offense, but I think you're doing a fair bit of inappropriate framing yourself.
Take your comparison of atheists and feminists. Are there atheists who claim religious people are wrong and bad? Sure. By the same token, are there feminists who claim MEN SUCK, and mean it? You bet! Have you never heard a feminist claim that men are inherently bad (violent, war-crazed, imperialistic, etc.) and need to be held in check by women, for their own good and the good of the planet? I certainly have.
Of course, it would be a bit unfair if I suggested that feminists claimed that in general.
I agree with you that it's wrong (and counterproductive) to imply that religious people are automatically inherently bad. I also think that's a fairly gross charicature of what most atheists are arguing.
I don't see anyone saying that. Some say that religious belief itself is irrational and bad. Some also say that some religious people are bad. That's not the same as what you're alleging.
If I say 'Race is a civil rights issue' have I implied that anyone who's white is a bigot? Of course not. Sex is a civil rights issue, is it not? Does that suggest are all men inherent chauvinists? No.
'Atheism is a civil rights issue' != 'religious people are bigots,' and I think you're quite wrong to 'frame' it that way.
Posted by: qetzal | June 29, 2007 10:33 PM
qetzal: Well, let's walk through the thought process again, laying everything out. If you think I'm framing inappropriately afterwards, and after reading what I point at, feel free to point it out.
If you look around on scienceblogs, recently, you can again and again find people saying, specifically, that 'Religious Belief = Crazy.' In fact, it is the majority viewpoint. (I believe I am the _only one even vaguely arguing that does not seem to agree with it immediately_, except Zuska, who isn't arguing.) That is, if you will, the 'active frame' here. It is around. I'm not lying. Seriously I have no reason to lie solely to cause myself to have a headache and make people argue with me.
(Also, no, I don't really believe in the strawfeminist. As far as I have seen, feminists who _really_ believe men are bad are _protofeminists_, who haven't fully internalized or understand that it is not men, it is patriarchy. Once that bridge is crossed... there are plenty of discussions on this fact by feminists. And a rant is different from a held belief.)
I realize that there are a LOT of good arguments for atheism. Again, as I side mention places, I'm agnostic (and would be considered atheist by a number of people here.) But the frame in which 'Atheist = Science = Good' and 'Religious person = Irrational = Bad' is absolutely omnipresent at Scienceblogs (and common elsewhere, thanks to various things) and when you tie _atheism_ to civil rights (and not religious freedom), a cognitive problem is set up which I'll detail a bit better.
First, you don't see anyone saying religious belief is irrational and bad? You haven't been reading the comment threads, then. Go over to Zuska's comment thread, or the main thread, or PZ's place, or Science Avenger's Blog (http://scienceavenger.blogspot.com/), or...
Perhaps you're saying that the 'irrational = bad' connection isn't made. If you don't realize it, _being irrational is almost univerally construed as bad_. You _never_ compliment someone by saying they're irrational. ESPECIALLY on ScienceBlogs. The implication is pretty damn clear, IMO, to anyone with basic media studies experience. Irrational is not a compliment. (At least, not as that word.)
As to the civil rights issue thing. You're missing the point. 'Race' isn't a civil rights issue. _Discrimination based upon race_ is a civil rights issue. Atheism isn't a civil rights issue (it's a belief.) _Discrimination based upon religious belief, whether buddhist, atheist, christian, or muslim_ is a civil rights issue. If someone says 'Atheism = Civil Rights', they're saying that anyone who is _not Atheist_ is equivalent to a bigot. It's a _very_ subtle point, but it's a very solid one, I think.
And now, the complex interpretation. It gets more complex, when an atheist says, 'Religious belief is irrational' in the same breath that 'Atheism is a civil rights issue', as PZ and Science Avenger have done, with the 'Atheism = Good and Religion = Bad' frame active. Then it becomes, at some abstract level, _a civil rights issue if people believe in a religion_. Do I believe that's an active belief people hold? Not completely. But _when that is the frame, that is what people will see_. And that is what people are saying in places.
If one equates atheism to a civil rights struggle, _and_ maintains that religion = irrational = bad, then the two together come about a milimeter from leaving the impression that religious people are as bad as bigots. And, if you again go to Science Avenger's blog, you will _see that being spelt out_. Thousands of pulpits, pastors are not talking about _religion_, or _the reading of the week_, but _how atheists are evil and they gots to be stopped_. It is a perfect example of how this frame comes together to _create_ that impression. The impression that it's us (atheists) versus them (religious), and there's no resolution until everyone's an atheist.
Is that necessarily what, say, Dawkins believes? I don't know. But framing is not necessarily about what people believe. It is about _how people phrase what they believe_. And the fact that I can find specific examples of people backing up the frame that they speak in explicitly only helps it. The God Delusion. Various blogs. Etc. Etc. Remember that we're talking about a _specific group_ of atheists, which I have pointed at, and shown exist via example. Not all atheists.
And unlike feminists, nobody in this atheist group goes through the work to try to define that it is the power structure, not the people. And it is clear to me that is mainly because, as PZ, and Science Avenger, and others have made clear, _that is not what they believe_. They don't believe that it's not the people. They believe that _every single person with a religious belief is irrational, a problem, a threat_. And the title of the book 'The God Delusion' supports them and this worldview, even if the words don't. (Yes, 'The God Delusion' means 'Believing in God makes you crazy', and crazy is quite a stigma.)
So, in conclusion, religious freedom is a civil rights issue. Specific discriminations against atheists are civil rights issues. _Atheism is a belief, which, if you wish to support religious freedom, is no better or worse than any other religious belief_. The idea that atheism is inherently superior, for whatever reason, is an exclusionary bad PR frame, not created by religious people (as _other_ bad ways of framing atheists are, such as atheists = devil worship and immoral, which is not atheists fault at all), but created _by the choice of attack and words which are being used_. I have presented numerous examples which support this.
-Mecha
Posted by: Mecha | July 1, 2007 2:23 PM
Yes, I see that a lot. That's not the same as your previous statement:
Arguing that religious belief is bad is NOT the same as arguing that someone with religious belief is bad.
OK, sure, but if someone says "Race is a civil rights issue" I think it's quite clear what they mean. Similarly with "Atheism is a civil rights issue."
I'm astonished you can honestly think that.
What's clear to me is they believe religious belief itself is irrational, a problem, a threat. Religious belief, not the person per se.
Posted by: qetzal | July 1, 2007 10:28 PM
qetzal: It's clear 'to you' because you have to assume that, as the alternative is unrealistic in your mind. It is _not clear_ when you consider the active frame, in which God and Religion are delusions, in which religious people are irrational, in which atheism is superior to all religions.
And no, it is not clear what 'Atheism is a civil rights' issue means to everyone. If it were _clear_, then people would not _be saying the opposite_ (that atheism, not religious freedom, is a civil rights issue.) Religious freedom is a civil rights issue. Period. Atheist freedom is a _part_ of that. Atheism _is not necessarily_ religious freedom by itself. Especially if you look over in Zuska's comments, where Jeffk says that having no religion in the world is equivalent to having no sexism in the world. (Hint: It's not.)
Yes, I can honestly think that! You know why? Here, let me link you JeffK's bloody comment.
http://scienceblogs.com/thusspakezuska/2007/06/impolite_atheists_my_new_role.php#comment-485462
_THIS_ is the frame that The God Delusion, 'religion = bad, science/atheism = good, and atheism (as opposed to religious freedom) = civil rights' creates. My point _has been made clear and evident_. I now have _multiple_ explicit points of evidence for my argument that it's a bad PR frame, that it's a mistake to compare atheism (not religious freedom) to feminism/gay rights/black rights, especially _without considering what it means_. It creates a huge nexus of bad ideas and things that just make it clearer to religious people that the activist atheists are not interested in them being on their side, whether they are or not.
And the concept that religious belief is irrational, a problem, and a threat, means that the believer is a very undefined hair away from agreeing with JeffK. Agreeing that freedom of religion is fine, as long as it's your religion/religious beliefs. That's not civil rights. I'm fairly sure most atheists activists don't think so! (Substitute JeffK saying that with some random religious person.)
And if that's what they believe (religious belief is a threat, not people), _that is not what they are saying_. 'The God Delusion'. If you believe in god, _you are crazy_. Do you not understand what crazy _means_ in this world? Completely out of bounds. Unable to function. Unable to be responsible. Unable to be respected, considered. Unable to be anything but tolerated, locked up or shielded from people for the good of society, because otherwise you will do damage to others and yourself. Medicated because they are _sick and need to be fixed_.
_Words have meaning, qetzal_. If you use those words to frame your beliefs, define your beliefs, _then you are responsible for what you are saying_. And saying that religious people are crazy is about as bad a PR decision for people who say, inaccurately, that 'atheism = civil rights' as one could ever choose.
You say 'Oh, but everyone knows what they mean, they don't have to say it correctly'... why not? The entire rest of the world does! If refining opinions is not anathema, and you do believe that 'atheism is civil rights' is not what they actually _mean_, then they should step up to the plate and say so. Because the vast majority of people here? Haven't. Too busy defending themselves, saying Atheism = Civil Rights and Atheism = Good and Religion = Bad and Religious = Bigots and...
Please. For everyone. If it is what you believe, don't say it wrong and blame the rest of the world for misunderstanding you. Try to say it right. Put it in the frame people can get behind: religious freedom and equality for everyone, including atheists. Stop tying atheism to rationalism and science (they are not equivalent. They are at best somewhat correlated.) Admit when things are misphrased. Because when you say it wrong, some people on both sides will miss. And you'll get hostility from your supposed 'opponents' (the bad PR which has been pointed out again and again!), and incorrectness about what equal rights means from your supposed 'allies' (JeffK as a perfect example.) I don't think I can lay this out more clearly, with more pointers.
If atheists are going to care about equality and religious freedom, they should actually study the _theories_ of minority activists. Not just their actions. There's a lot to learn.
-Mecha
Posted by: Mecha | July 2, 2007 9:59 AM
Mecha,
I agree that sloppy phrasing is unhelpful, and that "Atheism = Civil Rights" is incorrect as written. It's just rather surreal to see you pounding on the point so hard, when you do so much sloppy phrasing yourself.
Example #1: Chastising people for saying "someone with religious belief [is] irrational and bad" when they actually said "religious belief is irrational and bad." As you say, words have meaning. In this case, the word 'someone' changes the meaning considerably. As much as you insist on careful phrasing, I don't understand how you can ignore that.
Example #2: Claiming "Atheism = Civil Rights" means non-atheists are bigots. You've pointed out repeatedly that "Atheism = Civil Rights" is a false statement, so it's somewhat inconsistent to insist it has any true meaning at all. But there's no reasonable stretch by which your claimed meaning is defensible.
As an analogy, suppose I claim "Black = Civil Rights." If you tell me that's not a meaningful statement, I'll happily agree. But if you simultaneously insist that the statement means "non-blacks are bigots" I'll wonder which of us has fallen down the rabbit-hole.
Finally, I went and read every comment by jeffk on the thread you linked. I didn't find a single instance where he says or even implies that non-atheists are bigots. If you still claim otherwise, please quote the offending passage.
He does equate religious belief with delusion, and even explains why he thinks that's a reasonable comparison. He also says he wants all religion gone. But he follows up by saying that explicitly supports religious freedom. He just hopes to convince people rationally that religion is wrong and should be abandoned.
I think your point is that jeffk (et al.) should be careful how they phrase things, so that religious people don't see words like "delusion" and "all religion gone" and (wrongly) interpret him to be mean all religious people are crazy bigots, and all religion should be wiped out in any way possible. If that is really your point, then I wholeheartedly agree.
But you do your argument no favors by repeatedly mischaracterizing what others say. Especially not while insisting that everyone else state things correctly.
Posted by: qetzal | July 2, 2007 5:27 PM
I can make mistakes. I'm human. A movement should strive never to. They do damage in the far longer term. Neither is immune to criticism. I ain't perfect, but I think you're mistaking my work with _frames_ with statements about _specific people_ at points. I am further glad that you agree with the basic point that I and Nisbet and Ed bring up about ornery atheists doing damage to the movement, but remain frustrated that you refuse to examine the frames and assumptions that are active at scienceblogs.
Again. The active frame is that everyone who holds a religious belief is bad. Go look at Rob getting the crap kicked out of him when he said he was Christian, and that didn't conflict with religious. I'm not ignoring them, I'm reading what they're saying in context. As such, it is very easy to understand what I'm doing, if you are capable of admitting that the active frame on Scienceblogs with relation to atheism, and atheism as civil rights, specifically makes out religious people to be bigots (as opposed to true Equal Rights concerns, which doesn't give a shit about religious or atheists, _only power structures which cause inequity and specific bad actions_.
I absolutely do not think that 'Black = Civil Rights.' But let's assume, like ornery atheists, that it is (remember, PZ and Science Avenger, among others, say Atheism = Civil Rights. I think that's a horrible phrasing, but it's what they want to run with!) Let's also assume that, on Scienceblogs, Black = Science. Black = Reason. Silly, I know, but s/Black/Atheism and that is the frame. Let's assume, further, that 'White = Unreason. White = Bad. White = ENEMY OF SCIENCE.' Then being white is being the enemy of science, the enemy of civil rights, and thereby racism/bigotry. Being white means being bad. Simple. Straightforward.
That is an annoyingly TORTURED analogy, because you refuse to admit that that frame is active on Scienceblogs, because I can't point at one clear example that proves it absolutely and completely. Instead, I could point at a hundred that prove it together. But I don't have an entire day to _do your legwork for you_, as it were. I pointed at 4 in the first few hours of the discussion.
And, uh, did you read what I said? I said he proved and activated a frame. He does not need to say 'all atheists ar bigots.' It's the active frame. Science Avenger maintains that thousands of average preachers are talking about how evil atheists are every Sunday. Atheism = Civil Rights for some people, as I pointed out, makes the strong implication that Atheism is on the side of good, and all religions are on the side of evil (sexism/bigotry) in a Civil Rights battle. And, hey, PZ and others think that's true! (Instead of using an equality frame.)
Furthermore, he wants to _wipe out all non-religious_. My word, if someone had said that about atheists, that 'I think with enough education, we could get rid of all those atheists', people would go ballistic! The christians want to wipe us out! Oh, wait, _people do_. 'But it's okay because we only want to do it via indoctrination. Especially if they're young. Just convince them all atheism is the best!' That's not religious freedom. That's just a changing of the guard.
And yes! Yes. YES. That has been Nisbet's point, which PZ has excoriated him for, and my point, which _I_ have been excoriated for, and Ed's point, which he has been excoriated for. Why aren't you arguing with the people treating like shit and dogpiling on the people you agree with!
But it's not just about one person's phrasing. It's about _the entire movement's phrasing_. When the biggest atheist book in the world makes it clear that being religious is delusional, crazy (Remember: Crazy is something that is a _horrible stigma_) it does atheists a disservice. Ed Brayton talks about how he has to _fight_ the concept that atheists want the religious to be wiped out, and they're evil, _and he can't, because that is what the ornery atheists say and appear to mean_. He could _lie_ and say 'well, they don't really want you gone', and he'd be lying, because they DO. JeffK _said so_. Bye bye, religious.
You keep calling it mischaracterization. Put it in context, qetzal. Read scienceblogs. Look for the equivalences I pointed out. They're in many places. And I'm proposing that a _movement_ self examine and make choices about its actions. If ornery atheists are supposed to truly care about civil rights, one can no longer maintain the 'atheism is the best' frame/mindset. One would be well served by becoming familiar with minority theory. One would be well served by not arguing that framing = Giving Up/Being Silent. as PZ does simply because he doesn't like what Nizbet's saying. I have done interpretation, based in standard social science theories that exist in this world. Looking at the larger picture. Because that's where patterns are found. You're more than smart enough to find them yourself. If you look. I suggest looking at the discussion around Rob's blog when he said he was Christian, and being christian, as he was, was compatible with science.
If, on the other hand, that is not the real interest, then people shouldn't do the disservice of trying to pull on equal rights and equality language while wanting primarily conversion. (It's not equality if you want your group to have the only societal power.)
-Mecha
Posted by: Mecha | July 3, 2007 12:24 AM
I'm now looking at a scroll bar about two millimiters in height. You boys are doing some sturdy work!
Posted by: Lint | July 3, 2007 2:04 AM
Lint: Oh, go look over at Zuska's blog. It's ridiculous. I personally talk _way_ too much for _way_ too long, and it only gets worse when I have to manage multiple conversations and work, because then I don't have time/cognition to get rid of repetition.
-Mecha
Posted by: Mecha | July 3, 2007 12:40 PM
Mecha, please, for the love of whatever you believe in, try to take your own advice:
I give up trying to point out your ludicrous statements. It's clearly unproductive. It's a shame really, because I do think you have many good points as well, but you seem incredibly unwilling to take your own advice about framing it.
Posted by: qetzal | July 3, 2007 3:03 PM
Amen Qetzal.
Mecha whines: Science Avenger maintains that thousands of average preachers are talking about how evil atheists are every Sunday.
Indeed they are. Like I said before, get out of the ivory tower and get out in the real world and see WTF is going on. Most Americans wouldn't vote for an atheist for president. GHWB said he didn't think atheists could be good citizens. A huge proportion of people think atheists are incapable of moral behavior. Now, WHERE IN THE HELL DO YOU THINK THESE IDEAS ORIGINATE AND ARE PROMULGATED?!?! From the goddamned pulpits that's where.
It can't come from observation, because atheists are fairly invisible, and what data there is implies the opposite conclusion. And people sure as hell aren't born thinking atheists are baby killers. It's a simple process: Minister -> parent -> child. As Rosenhouse rightly pointed out, atheists had a public image problem long before Dawkins, Myers and Harris came along. Who do you suppose started it?
If "framing" means pretending religion isn't irrational, and that atheists are to blame for their plight, rather than laying the blame at the kind of irrationality displayed by the Falwells and Robertsons of the world, then kindly tuck your frames into the nearest dark orifice of choice. I'll have no part of it.
Posted by: Science Avenger | July 3, 2007 4:01 PM
"people sure as hell aren't born thinking atheists are baby killers."
And on that note, all people are born atheists. Part of their programming involves the ability to later deny this with (except among the extremely fortunate, some of whom ultimately recover) nary a trace of cognitive dissonance,; to say with conviction that God's been in their hearts and minds all along.
It's really a vile and pernicious scheme from top to bottom.
Posted by: Kevin Beck | July 3, 2007 4:11 PM
qetzal: You have yet to... offer advice on framing it. Or anything. You just insist I am not worth talking to. Which is at odds with your 'But you have good ideas!' statement (which you didn't specify what they were. Why not? If you want to take such commentary offline to e-mails, I give Kevin permission to pass you my e-mail so we don't get spam-tagged (or troll-tagged). Maybe I can walk you through the way in which scienceblogs has defined the environment and frame I talk about over the 4th.)
Kevin: Interesting way of putting it.
But if that is the case, why do people argue that you have to indoctrinate people with reason to make certain that atheism exists, and create an insult frame, a 'all religious people (not just christians) are bad, crazy, damage society' framework, as opposed to simply tearing down the 'vile and pernicious schemes' of the judeo-christian standard, attacking the social norms, like every equality movement does? Successfully?
Remember that this started from atheism and civil rights being intertwined. Why is it if atheism and civil rights are intertwined, that nobody seems to care about what it means to carry on a minority rights movement? Or to learn the lessons _of_ minority rights movements?
-Mecha
Posted by: Mecha | July 3, 2007 5:11 PM
Are you for real?
ADVICE TO MECHA:
DON'T MAKE STUFF UP.
DON'T CONFLATE 'RELIGION IS BAD' WITH 'RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ARE BAD.'
DON'T MAKE LUDICROUS ANALOGIES LIKE 'ATHEISM = CIVIL RIGHTS' IS EQUIVALENT TO 'NON-ATHEISTS ARE BIGOTS.'
I don't know how to be any clearer with my advice.
And yet, on July 2 @ 5:27PM I posted:
It's like we're speaking totally different languages that just happen to use all the same words. Completely surreal.
Not interested.
Posted by: qetzal | July 3, 2007 9:14 PM
"Kevin: Interesting way of putting it.
But if that is the case, why do people argue that you have to indoctrinate people with reason to make certain that atheism exists...?"
You don't -- unless they've been indoctrinated with faith first. Atheism is a natural state, but it takes a hell of a lot of work (and on top of that, lots of luck) to convince someone brainwashed from the crib to believe in the Jesus myth (or any such assortment of fables) to see why the whole thing is a sham.
Seriously, a sense of wonder about "all of this" is one thing, but how many of these Christmongers really believe they would have come to the conclusions about the natural world promulgated in the Bible were it not for their parents hammering that stupid shit into them before they could think critically? I've asked a lot of the noiser Christians I've encountered online where they think their faith really comes from and I never get a straight answer, though I get a lot of frustration-driven insults and evasive commentary.
Posted by: Kevin Beck | July 3, 2007 9:20 PM
Since Matt Nisbet's post linked to an older (April) one of mine and suddenly I had a bunch of new readers, I wrote a couple of posts about the ensuing discussion. Here and, after getting a surprising (or maybe not) reaction from PZ and Kristjan, here. I guess I should add this cautionary note: my view lines up with pretty well with Mecha's.
Kevin, when you claim "all people are born atheists" what are you trying to convey? Even as an atheist I don't see that as being more than an idle conjecture. It's the sort of metaphysical statement I expect atheists to reject yet I hear things like this quite often.
Then with "It's really a vile and pernicious scheme from top to bottom" you are clearly staking out your ground as being in the camp where using a broad brush is favored over finer tools -- again not something I expect from my fellow atheists who I (perhaps wrongly) expect to live up to the labels of rationality and reason they wear so proudly.
qetzal: It's like we're speaking totally different languages that just happen to use all the same words. Completely surreal.
That's the salient point and perhaps the most useful thing anyone has said in the whole discussion across the many blogs talking about this.
Posted by: Trinifar | July 3, 2007 10:34 PM
"Kevin, when you claim 'all people are born atheists' what are you trying to convey? Even as an atheist I don't see that as being more than an idle conjecture. It's the sort of metaphysical statement I expect atheists to reject yet I hear things like this quite often."
I cannot offer empirical data to the effect that if children were not exposed to religious dogma until they were old enough to think critically, the world would be a vastly different place, with far, far fewer believers. But I have my suspicions and believe the truth of these suspicions is borne out by the evidence we do have. I know of very few adults who adhere to sectarian religious beliefs that could (abbitrarily) be described as "fundamentalist" who did not come to these beliefs as a result of childhood indoctrination.
Put more simply, there is no means by which the "revealed knowledge" of a widespread religious cult like Christianity could be acquired and internalized without specific exposure. Atheism, being the simple lack of a belief in a deity -- and in this case one with well-defined characteristics and a specific backstory -- would have to be the default condition. There is nothing that invokes metaphysical assumptions about here, any more than metaphysical assumptions are required to posit that newborn babies do not have a fondness for rap music. The wiring might be (and plainly is) in place, but the substrate itself needs to be introduced externally.
Your question seems to suggest that we should accept as a premise the idea that people are as likely to be born believing as they are not believing. There's simply no reason to think that something that can only result from inculcation is as likely to be innate as the basic absence of such a thing. How many Yemenis believe in Jesus Christ as children? How many rural Alabamas glom on to the idea of Brahma and Shiva?
Then with 'It's really a vile and pernicious scheme from top to bottom' you are clearly staking out your ground as being in the camp where using a broad brush is favored over finer tools -- again not something I expect from my fellow atheists who I (perhaps wrongly) expect to live up to the labels of rationality and reason they wear so proudly.
I don't see a reason to apply finer tools with regard to certain aspects of this "debate." I label Christianity (and other sects, but I speak of the one most relevant to American society) as vile from top to bottom because of the manner in which baldly unsupported and incoherent beliefs are maintained by a twisted sort of internal cohesion. A good example of this is the response by Christians to the charge that the Jesus story is eerily similar to many that predated it and is therefore certainly borrowed, with the expected adaptations. Many will say that Satan planted these other, earlier "false gods" so as to make Jesus appear less credible once he came onthe scene, because Satan knew how influential and powerful Jesus would be. It's nutty from any angle, yet offers a certain air-tightedness to those already ensconced in belief. Then there's the whole idea of viewing criticism and lack of evidence for a god not as a laibility but as an asset -- because if God had made it easy for everyone to believe, he clearly wouldn't have reason to distinguish those deserving of his eternal grace in Heaven from the rest of us. Again, both goofy beyond redemption but internally consistent.
Posted by: Kevin Beck | July 3, 2007 11:04 PM
Kevin,
Quite right -- and generally true of any belief, even the belief in atheism or the belief in the scientific method. Most of our beliefs are acquired from the culture we are born into. Given that we find belief in the supernatural in every culture, from primitive to modern, in every corner of the world it does seem there is some predisposition (some innate wiring to use your term) to posit some form of agency behind everything we see happen in our environment.
Atheism or more specifically naturalism seems to me to be a more "advanced" concept, one that you can only arrive at with a good deal of effort within a culture which supports liberal (in the old sense of the word) education and science. Oddly, the belief in naturalism only occurs in those places most removed from the natural world. An anthropologist I think would be astounded to find a primitive tribe anywhere which didn't believe in the supernatural.
Actually I'm making the case that we are born with a predisposition to being believers in some form of supernatural agency, and it is only in "advanced" cultures that we find people who believe in naturalism, the idea that there are no supernatural causes.
Only if we ignore what seems to be the affect of evolution. My guess is that we are wired deep down in our DNA to suppose there is an agent behind everything that happens. If you are hominid on the African plains you are better served by assuming there is something out there making the grass move than not. It's a small step from that belief to the conjecture that someone or something is making the sun rise and move across the sky each morning.
And, trying to think like an anthropologist, I ask, "what else would expect from a species born on the African savannah?" Baldly unsupported and incoherent beliefs would be the rule rather than exception in an animal evolving in a predatory environment. "... goofy beyond redemption but internally consistent" is just the state of affairs we all face in our own minds as a consequence of being organisms a the top of the food chain. Rather than "vile" it's just what one would expect from a naturally evolving beast.
Given our origins as homo sapiens, what is really astounding is that some of us have figured out how to be rational and act in the world from a place of dispassionate reason rather than fear.
Posted by: Trinifar | July 4, 2007 11:37 AM
If you refuse to consider that one can assemble evidence for a frame from a vast variety of sources, qetzel, then you won't listen to anything I have to say. I'll put in a bit of effort to link to discussions which support the frame, and then be done with it.
qetzel says: DON'T CONFLATE 'RELIGION IS BAD' WITH 'RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ARE BAD.'
Dawkins titles his book: 'The God Delusion.' Science Avenger says (among others) that that means that someone who believes in any god is delusional ( http://scienceblogs.com/thusspakezuska/2007/06/impolite_atheists_my_new_role.php#comment-483910 ). Delusion is a psychological disorder, colloquially called/associated with 'crazy.' People who are crazy are not treated well in our society.
Oh, you want more? Okay.
http://scienceblogs.com/interactions/2007/03/so_im_a_christian_shoot_me.php#comment-371066
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/03/spirituality_another_word_for.php#more
http://scienceavenger.blogspot.com/2007/06/atheism-civil-rights-issue-hell-yes.html
qetzel says: DON'T MAKE LUDICROUS ANALOGIES LIKE 'ATHEISM = CIVIL RIGHTS' IS EQUIVALENT TO 'NON-ATHEISTS ARE BIGOTS.'
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/03/get_meaner_angrier_louder_fier.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/09/ken_miller_creationist.php
http://scienceavenger.blogspot.com/2007/06/atheism-civil-rights-issue-hell-yes.html (Big one on assuming all religious people are bigots.)
http://scienceblogs.com/thusspakezuska/2007/06/impolite_atheists_my_new_role.php#comment-485545 (complete confusion of what 'civil rights' and 'freedom of religion' means.)
http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2007/06/atheism_is_not_a_civil_rights.php#comment-482567
I can go on. But I am fairly certain people don't want to go read through all the posts I've searched up. If people do, they'll pick at 'Oh, but that's not _exactly_ what this person means' and so on. Unfortuately, in a frame, everyone's language choices get linked together with implications and meanings. Look at how Science Avenger can't just say 'Mecha says', but 'Mecha whines (generally feminizing and dismissive)' 'Mecha trolls (irrationalizing and dismissive)'. Etc. Etc. These are attacks based in stereotypes and the active societal frame here as well as the overall societal frame.
Take it or leave it. You can't see privilege or frames if you don't really look.
-Mecha
Posted by: Mecha | July 4, 2007 12:42 PM
Mecha, I DO see them. That's why I said some of your points are quite valid.
Here, I'll say it again: I think your overall point has merit.
But while you're complaining about Science Avenger's word choices, framing you as irrational and dismissable (sp?), you seem either unable or unwilling to examine your own word choices. It's as if you want to cast the radical atheists' words and meaning in the worst possible light.
Tell me, if radical atheists are wrong to attack all Christians based on their stereotypes, as you say, aren't you also wrong to attack all radical atheists based on your stereotypes? Shouldn't the screen door swing both ways?
Posted by: qetzal | July 4, 2007 1:22 PM
Mecha lied: (Big one [my blog] on assuming all religious people are bigots.)
I'm glad you put this out there complete with the link that totally refutes your claim. And you wonder why your reality-removed rants fall on deaf ears. Here, let me put it in language that not even you can misunderstand:
I do not think all religious people are bigots.
Now try to twist that around in your frames, you pathetic whining liar.
Or was that frame too subtle for you?
Posted by: Science Avenger | July 4, 2007 2:02 PM
Trinifar --
I'm with you 100% of the way when it comes to the underpinnings of certain evidence-free perceptions or beliefs. Clearly, it's better for a plains-roving human or hominid to mistake a rock for a tiger than vice-versa, and anthropomorphizing natural phenomena (e.g., storms and lightning) seems to follow logically from such psychology.
My point is that no one is born believing the specific tenets of a specific religion. There are those who not only believe that Christ is their lord and savior, but that they would hold this belief no matter what. There's no way to prove to them that without programmed inoculation with Christianity early in life, this would simply not be the case and they would have almost certainly wound up skeptical if only informed about the Bible at the age of, say, 12 or 13. But I suspect you agree with this point and that anyone claiming to have "always" felt the presence of a specific deity is simply deluded.
I think this is important, because if people are willing to examine where their beliefs really come from, they're in a better position to be critical of their own ideas -- something we all need to do.
Posted by: Kevin Beck | July 4, 2007 2:51 PM
qetzel: You mean Science Avenger speaking up in multiple places to call me a troll, liar, and whiner in a non-contributory fashion, and nobody criticizing him for it? Yeah. Can't imagine why I might be irritated at having to talk in a hostile environment.
It is not necessarily true that all activist atheists actually hate religious, or _really_ want them all to be gone. In fact, I'd really hope that that weren't true, and in some ways I have to believe it is, not because it isn't reasonable (after all, that's what the frame says, and that frame is what people are reinforcing), but because I can't quite believe that things are that bad. All is a hell of a lot of people, for one. But that is what the words illustrate, what their words aim for, the choices that are made, and that is what almost everyone seems to be in favor of, at least initially. If I weren't being particularly charitable, weren't an atheist-like (agnostic), weren't, weren't, weren't, I wouldn't look past their words too far, _and it would make perfect sense not to do so_. Communication is a negotiated medium, and if the negotiation involves 'Everything associated with you is bad, everything associated with us is good', I don't see things going anywhere.
I mean, you say 'I have good points', but then say, 'But you can't treat them like they're saying what they're meaning! They're not all bad!' (Without explicitly saying what 'good points' I have, except that the Atheism = Civil Rights thing is indeed imprecise...) If what I see them as saying is something you agree with also seeing, then the initial point of 'Bad PR' is incredibly valid. The idea of a _frame_ is incredibly valid. That was the initial consideration, the initial observation, the initial argument, and if you agree to that, then I can't help but be a little pleased that someone has been listening. If you ALSO want to say 'that is not what ornery atheists believe (which is perfectly valid)', then my response comes, as I point at the posts, 'they have to make that clearer, and not just by saying 'But I don't!'' You match words with actions.
Compare to feminism or other rights groups, in my experience. How do they convince people that they don't hate men, but hate sexism? Through the words they choose, the thoughts they express, and the actions they take. The best do it through _near constant_ self-examination of their word choices, their cause, their doubt, as well as the same examination of their allies' word choices and doubt, and do so publicly. They don't, especially in arguments, generally tolerate language which is prejudiced. It's sometimes subtle, and I sometimes have to fight with them on the same damn issue we're talking about here, because nobody's perfect, but generally, after I manage to cross the boundary of my inherent privilege, some people are willing to listen. Look back at Zuska's blog, recently, her wondering if she was doing wrong, self-doubting, examining her actions and her self. _That_ is honesty. I _do not get the impression_ that PZ, or Dawkins, would expose their underbellies in such a manner.
Similarly, a person who comes from a position of privilege must learn the language. You stop using words like 'bitch' and 'whore' and 'rape' casually, because those are part of a culture, a norm, that sets up the societal norms that are unacceptable.
Compare that to the recent flap on ScienceBlogs. Nisbet brings up the idea that ornery atheists are bad PR? He's slammed for wanting atheists to 'be silent and get back in the closet', for not being a scientist (and being as bad as religion.) Rob believes in a weak sort of christianity? He's ridiculed as a scientist and person. Ed says, from experience, that people are turned away by rhetoric which gleefully equates them with delusion and hatred, and he's called an 'appeaser', or 'ineffective' because he goes out and talks to people. Look at how not just the power structures are being ridiculed, or bad acts, but any expression which doesn't agree with the concept of going out and metaphorically stomping face against the all-but-equated-with-bigotry-and-sometimes-are religious folk. Not just the 'bad' religious folk, but all religious, all religions. Religion is evil. Religion is as bad as "science" by "scientists." There is almost no middle ground in this discussion. And prejudiced language aplenty abounds, as people attempt to box their opposition (and I'm not saying I'm perfect here, although I'm trying, but I have been given a _lot_ to work with inside of the conflict frame.) I don't even have any privilege here to cut through, because I'm not part of a privileged group relative to atheists (maybe I have, uh, 'place privilege' because average religious aren't walking out of their average pulpits, being told that atheists are evil by their average preachers, but I'm not sure Nebraska qualifies? Couldn't tell you. Clearly 'place privilege' is an issue, since 'East Coast' and 'Ivory Tower' atheists don't know what it's like. I get the very strong feeling that, much like 'middle class' feminists versus 'poor' feminists is a division of concern, people see 'blue state' versus 'red state' atheists as a division of concern. But nobody's taken that to its conclusion either.)
And when you consider the frames that are active, there almost can't be any middle ground, inside the conflict frame that both ornery atheists (atheism ~= science ~= reason, religion is inherently anti-science) AND evangelicals (science ~= atheism ~= immoral/amoral, unreconcilable with our religious doctrines) espouse. That's a problem. ESPECIALLY if, as you say, that is not what all or most or a significant number of what people believe.
I remember, early in Zuska's thread, someone saying that they'd brought up similar ideas as I (Blake Stacey, and he does seem to be aiming at that in PZ's comment thread, which he linked), but it doesn't seem as if many people have taken it to heart here on Scienceblogs, possibly because few people have taken it to its conclusion, which is where it is most visible. At the least, you'd expect people to agree with me in arguments at least in part, as they have also examined the idea and found it appealing. Or taken me (or others) to task for mistakes _without_ labeling me(/them) with insults in an attempt to silence, equating them to religion, to irrational, to people from the ID movement, etc.
Criticizing other's (sometimes purposeful, sometimes not, that's just the nature of communication and frames: not always as conscious as we'd like) conflation, framing, and insults is not quite the same as conflating yourself, especially when the criticism is valid. You'll note that I don't equate science, or atheism, with evil (which would be the Evangelical/Judeo-Christian frame.) You'll note I specifically bring out examples of people doing things which fit inside of the frame which I hypothesize, the frame which PZ and others support, and thereby let exist, whether consciously/maliciously or unconsciously/accidentally. Either people believe what they are saying and implying, or they are letting the frame, and the activism, carry them away. And neither one is good. I couldn't tell you which. But when people argue that the frame isn't a problem, that the frame is good, that the frame is proper... which seems more likely? Which is someone honestly more likely to believe, and see, and feel?
-Mecha
Posted by: Mecha | July 5, 2007 11:00 AM