A Fisk-It-Yourself Challenge : Dispatches from the Creation Wars

ScienceBlogs Book Club: Inside the Outbreaks

Profile

Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media and the host of Declaring Independence, a one hour weekly political talk show on WPRR in Grand Rapids, Michigan.(static)

Search

Other Information

Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb

Ed Brayton is a participant in the Center for Independent Media New Journalism Program. However, all of the statements, opinions, policies, and views expressed on this site are solely Ed Brayton's. This web site is not a production of the Center, and the Center does not support or endorse any of the contents on this site.

Ed's Audio and Video

Declaring Independence podcast feed

YearlyKos 2007

Video of speech on Dover and the Future of the Anti-Evolution Movement

Audio of Greg Raymer Interview

E-mail Policy

Any and all emails that I receive may be reprinted, in part or in full, on this blog with attribution. If this is not acceptable to you, do not send me e-mail - especially if you're going to end up being embarrassed when it's printed publicly for all to see.

My Ecosystem Details

« Reading This May Cost You Brain Cells | Main | Florida Science Standards Vote Set »

A Fisk-It-Yourself Challenge

Posted on: February 13, 2008 9:02 AM, by Ed Brayton

Rich Hughes sent me a link to this staggeringly stupid essay about atheism and homosexuality. Since I've had a long day and I'm tired, I'm gonna throw it out there for my readers to fisk for themselves. Have fun. And please, hammer....don't hurt em.

Comments

I'm not gonna go through the whole thing, I just want to say that it bugs me when people treat atheism as a philosophy just because they take theism as a philosophy. Atheism is not a worldview, it's a position on an individual topic in a worldview. Atheism indicates lack of belief in god and nothing else, and therefore has absolutely no bearing on homosexuality or anything else outside the question of if a deity exists.

If someone wants to say that secular humanism, or some other atheistic worldview, doesn't offer a basis for tolerance, then they should do so. But there are a number of different atheistic worldviews with differing opinions on homosexuality.

Also, atheism is not equal to materialism. Again, if someone wants to criticize materialism, do so, but just don't conflate it with some other term like atheism so you can wrap them all up in one tidy little blanket and not have to think too hard.

Posted by: Eric | February 13, 2008 10:06 AM

Yes, there are multiple incredible leaps of reasoning. The comments are even more mind-boggling... Alas, I'm up against a publication deadline & don't have time to go through it in detail, but oh my, the stupid, it burns...

Posted by: KCProgramr | February 13, 2008 10:10 AM

Atheism is a concept transformed into a derogatory word by Christians to adversely demonize those "scary non-believers". Calling someone an evil Atheist has always left Christians with the ability to completely control the discussion and to frighten imbeciles and little children.
Are there other words for disbelieving in other non-entities? What do you call someone who disbelieves in ghosts? An Aghostite? Or witches, Sasquach, UFO's, elves, trolls, fairies, or Santa Claus?

Posted by: RAM | February 13, 2008 11:15 AM

Eric, what throws them is the "-ism" at the end. People equate anything ending with -ism to mean an entire philosophy or creed, like Hinduism or Capitalism or what have you.

I always respond with "Atheism itself is no more a philosophy than a basement is a house." It can be part of a larger worldview, it can serve as one of the foundations of a philosophy, but in and of itself it's just a description of an absence.

Posted by: Jeff Hebert | February 13, 2008 12:13 PM

One of the major things that bugs me is the lumping together of "paganism". Wow. If you are religion X, then everything NOT "X" is "pagan". Using a term such as "paganism" is analogous to Eric's point about atheism - there isn't one unifying philosophy or belief structure (other than a belief in something other than you the believer holds to be true).

One could technically call "Judaism" and "Islam" pagan POVs, since they do not accept Jesus Christ as the son of God (and God at the same time, as well as being the Holy Spirit/Ghost; three-in-one, one-in-three, mysteries of faith, etc). Yet in both these "pagan" religions one finds a great number of anti-homosexual attitudes.

However, one might argue that Xtianity, Judaism, and Islam are all part of the "Abrahamic tradition." Well, you can split hairs on that one, since Judaism borrowed a lot of its stories from local religions (Babylonian, Sumerian, Hittite, etc). How much of a fundamental difference is needed before you start calling things "pagan"?

Going back to my original point, what if you are a Hindu, or any other non-Abrahamic religion? Then the "Abrahamic traditions" are as "pagan" as "Wiccan" is to Xtians. Lumping all "not-my-religions" together as "pagan" will defeat the erroneous arguments that the author attempts to make in the first place.

Yes: "The stupid, it burns..."

Posted by: Umlud | February 13, 2008 1:10 PM

I commented there (but since it will no doubt be deleted soon):

Jason Failes Says:
February 13, 2008 at 3:26 pm
"the ideal set for us by the Lord"
I don't know what country you live in, or who your Lord is, but most of us on the internet are from democratic western countries, and care far more about determining and acting on ethical principles, rather than imitating local royalty, regardless of how laudable their standards are. Either understand your audience and make your references more global, or make it clear what country you're from, who this Lord is, and give links or examples of his stellar behavior.

Kidding aside: Wow, way too long for so few valid points.

It's strange the way religious people always seem to presume just what atheists as a group believe. First of all, there is almost nothing that atheists as a group believe, as there is no doctrine, just one's own conclusions based on evidence.

Secondly, there was almost nothing in your diatribe about atheist thinking that I recognized (and I'm at least a 3rd generation atheist; If we thought like that, I would recognize it from someone in my family).

Basically, your whole argument is a compilation of straw man arguments, gross mischaracterizations of and theistic prejudices against atheism, long-outdated beliefs (who thinks Freud speaks for the modern state of atheist thought; indeed to quote someone who presented an idea before the last centuary of findings on homosexuality completely ignores the empirical core of all rational atheists), quote-mining, awful logic, unsupported assumptions, and conflating culture with atheism (ok, so a culture is macho, and because it's not directly religious, it's atheism's fault...what?)

Returning to the core of atheism, although I recognize that this blog is little more than an echo chamber for like-minded people, I must point out that to claim that a stance is atheistic, you must show that there is a fact-based reason for such a stance. A large number of atheists will not develop nor keep an idea that is not based in fact. There are no such facts for bias towards homosexuals. Period.

Posted by: Jason Failes | February 13, 2008 1:19 PM

It's strange the way religious people always seem to presume just what atheists as a group believe.

Dude, that is the single most hilarious sentence I have read all day.

Posted by: Brandon | February 13, 2008 1:31 PM

I liked

... imitating local royalty...

Yesssss...

Posted by: Umlud | February 13, 2008 1:41 PM

I commented there, but it's really pointless: those guys can't distinguish between inclinations and actions, discrimination and tolerance, association and necessity (communists are atheists, therefore, vice versa), etc.

Posted by: uncle noel | February 13, 2008 2:33 PM

He's missing the obvious and simple point of this. Atheisim, unlike most of Christianity does not start with the presumption that its wrong to be gay. That is why gays are treated better in general by atheists than they are by Christians. Atheists give a fair shake to gays because they aren't biased against them from the beginning, they judge gays on their own merits and when you do that generally speaking you have no reason to oppose gaynes.

Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 13, 2008 2:52 PM

One of the most noticeable features of recent atheist polemic is its deliberate appeal to the gay community. Religion, it is argued, is innately hostile to gays and so the self-respecting gay man or woman should utterly reject it.

Right here, in the introductory paragraph, there's already a problem. The writer seems to assume that atheism is like religion: "Join us for the benefits." See how nice we are, see how happy we can make you, see how much we can provide -- see how well our world view 'works.'" Therefore, it must be the truth.

The only good reason to become an atheist is that you have considered the matter, and do not think God exists. Naturalism is more likely than supernaturalism. That's it. Not because of human rights, not because of comfort, not because you can base a better system of government on it. Not because of the all-you-can-eat buffets and the free toaster. Does God exist? Do you think it does? That's atheism's "appeal."

Now, appealing to humanistic gay people to join with humanistic atheists and humanistic theists against anti-humanistic bigotry and discrimination -- that's an entirely different issue. There's no good secular argument which can demonstrate that homosexuality causes any harm, in and of itself, by going "against nature's intention." For that, you either need some kind of religion or a poorly reasoned, poorly-supported philosophy or pseudoscience.

The two issues -- atheism and secularism -- should not be confused. But it keeps happening. Christians keep framing nonbelief in the terms of their own religion, complete with spurious arguments and assertions that "nice" means "true."

Posted by: Sastra | February 13, 2008 2:53 PM

I just couldn't help myself and had to read it again. (Uaragh!) I'm just paraphrasing each paragraph below (so you won't have to torture yourself so much), so please bear with me. If you think this is markedly shorter than the original (having glanced over there briefly before you ran screaming from your computer), please realize that I've left out almost all of blokey's supporting drivel.

Intro-bit
Athiests are trying to appeal to the gay community because of a perception of religion being anti-gay. Blokey feels like homosexuality has taken up too much of his time, doesn't fit with the teachings of "the Lord", doesn't like the homophobic culture (specifically rap), or the homosexual culture (specifically hedonism). High levels of sexuality common in hedonism is "squalid" regardless of sexual orientation. Blokey then basically says, "I don't want to praise homosexuality, but bury the notion that atheism is good for the gays." (My own horribly pathetic reference to Julius Caesar.)

Pro-Homosexual Attitudes in Paganism
"Pagan" religions have been tolerant of homosexuality. Here are lots of examples: Babylon, Canaan, Ishtar, look I have done my google research, Greeks, Neo-Paganism, more research on the googles, shamans, Scythians. Sexually-transmitted disease! Transvestism is dangerous. Individual religions may (or may not) condemn the gays.

Lack of Basis for Tolerance to Gays in Atheism
Athiesm is a rejection of theism and theistic values, but not acceptance or tolerance of homosexuality. A BBC poll (which must have included secularists [sic]) showed that 3/4 of the Brits were against gay marriage. BBC Radio 4 had a documentary on hatred of homosexuals in Caribbean cultures, which Xtian ministers feel was due to the "masculine culture". Blokey guesses, there is redirection of hatred going on, since Jamaican gov't has been highly corrupt since the 1980s, and these rappers are just taking it out on the gays.

Postmodernist philosophy is fashionable, but intolerant despite its claim to the opposite. British gay spokesperson was not happy with nihilism, and gays should go beyond this. Apparently going more negative than Nihilism embraces the positive. (Silly little gay Limey.) Nihilism seems to be a fashionable position for those feeling oppressed by society. One cannot condemn gay-bashing without overarching morals necessary for society. Nihilism rejects society (ergo, gays must not hate gay-bashing?). Blokey uses Brothers Karamazov which I haven't read, so I'm not covering here. Blokey then tries a half-hearted attack against Dawkins via proxy, and fails horribly.

Hostility to Homosexuality in Atheist and Anti-Christian Ideologies
Many athiest ideologies can be traced to anti-gay roots. Freudianism. (I didn't know Freud was an "-ism"!) Stalinist Soviet Union. Nazi Germany. (Apparently it wasn't Christian.)

Materialistic Conceptions of Humanity No Guarantee of Tolerance
Scientific claim that there might be a genetic link with homosexuality was done "as part of a campaign to remove the perceived prejudice against gays". (Wow. How nice and well-organized of the scientists. Here's a hand for you/us.) Blokey provides examples from literature with no citation apparent, save for the sole questioning one.

Science tries to overthrow the views of how society is supposed to be run. Science proposes explanations of origins, but no philosophical justification of morals. However, scientific justifications of morals is wrong. Blokey cites Haldan's back-of-the-envelope altruism calculation, but says altruism doesn't work based on kin selection, but on a belief of what is right.

Materialism a Threat to Human Dignity
Much of atheism is based on materialism. Materialism undercuts morality. Reductionist scientists think of humans as organic automatons, but people act as if there is an id. Oh, the humanity! Theists believe that the basis of altruism is "the belief that the suffering experienced by people is ... real pain suffered by a real person" This basis of belief will save the gay and the straight from dehumanization!

Reproductive Technology and Children's Right to Life, regardless of Predicted Sexuality
Christian (apparently we've moved from pagan to theist to Xtian) objections to designer babies will save the gays, since legislating a ban on designer babies will ensure that - if there is a gay gene - parents-to-be can't get rid of the gay gene. Xtians believe people are more than the sum of their genes! They have free will! A right to choose! (Wait...) Xtians moral attitudes to the unborn will protect the nascent gay and straight alike!

Christian Attitudes to Homosexuality: A Middle Way
Xtians are right now waging holy Crusades over the morality of gay-ness, but there's a THIRD WAY: Love the sinner hate the sin! (Oh, why didn't someone think of that earlier!) Therefore, while the traditional Xtian hates homosexuality (ya don't say), the Xtian love of the transcendent subject - made in the image of an ineffable being - just might (maybe, if we cross our fingers and wish REALLY hard) protect both the gay and the straight from the dehumanization and mechanism of atheism.

Posted by: Umlud | February 13, 2008 4:09 PM

The original poster defends his statements over at his blog:

http://beastrabban.wordpress.com/2008/02/07/homosexuals-and-atheism-an-uneasy-alliance/#comment-1123

Posted by: Umlud | February 13, 2008 4:24 PM

It's not really worth the read, is it? The author has only a passing knowledge of philosophy and history, and makes so many unsupported assumptions that the whole thing is a straw man made out of tissue paper. It wasn't even mildly interesting, since his prose style lacks and he never gets around to an original idea.

Unlud: I like your synopsis better!

Posted by: kehrsam | February 13, 2008 5:20 PM

http://beastrabban.wordpress.com/2008/02/13/christianity-atlantic-slavery-and-abolition/#comment-1143
They are on the subject of slavery now. Stop them before they burn more innocent strawmen!

Posted by: Samuel Skinner | February 14, 2008 2:22 AM

What hurts my head, is that they use the name of a Herbert villain. Not only a villain, but probably the very stupidest character he ever came up with. Rabban is renowned for being an ignorant, brutish thug.

Well, ok, trying to read a damned bit of that post, hurt far more. But still, the guys choice of pseudonym is not exactly flattering or endearing.

Posted by: DuWayne | February 14, 2008 4:14 AM

Sexual orientation and gender orientation are largely genetically determined. The behaviors a person manifests are largely conditioned by their cultural context, and where this conflicts with a person's biological predispositions, much conflict results: including conflict that produces a reaction-formation defense that takes the form of, in the present case, obsession with the repressed element of self when found in others.

Theism and atheism do not seem to have genetic components. The issue of activity in the right temporal lobe is only one of "deep sense of meaning in relation to something larger than self," for which the object can be a deity but does not have to be: many are the scientists who find "a deep sense of the mystical" in the workings of nature including nonliving nature such as physics and astrophysics.

There is no correlation between these elements, any more than there is between eye color and handedness. Rhetorical attempts to correlate them and then draw conclusions are pure nonsense deserving of no further attention except to refute them in the civic realm.

Posted by: g510 | February 14, 2008 5:16 AM

Interesting that he puts Freudianism(by which I think means Freudian Psychoanalysis)as being an atheist antigay.

Except Freud, by the standards of his time, was not all that homophobic. Here is the 'letter to an american mother' which Freud sent to a mother who wrote to him hoping he could 'cure' her son.

Dear Mrs....

I gather from your letter that your son is a homosexual. I am most impressed by the fact that you do not mention this term yourself in your information about him. May I question you, why you avoid it? Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by a certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.). It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime, and cruelty too. If you do not believe me, read the books of Havelock Ellis.

By asking me if I can help, you mean, I suppose, if I can abolish homosexuality and make normal heterosexuality take its place. The answer is, in a general way, we cannot promise to achieve it. In a certain number of cases we succeed in developing the blighted germs of heterosexual tendencies which are present in every homosexual, in the majority of cases it is no more possible. It is a question of the quality and the age of the individual. The result of treatment cannot be predicted.

What analysis can do for your son runs in a different line. If he is unhappy, neurotic, torn by conflicts, inhibited in his social life, analysis may bring him harmony, peace of mind, full efficiency whether he remains a homosexual or gets changed. . . .

Sincerely yours with kind wishes,
Freud

Posted by: R | February 15, 2008 6:47 AM

Dispatches from the Creation Wars

Profile

Search

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Blogroll

Archives

Other Information

A Fisk-It-Yourself Challenge

Comments

Post a Comment

ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Channels

RSS Feeds

More ScienceBlogs

Editor's Picks

Science News from NYTimes.com »

From NYTimes.com