Chris Mooney is a freelance writer and the author of two books, 
Science Blogs are abuzz since PZ, Rob, James, John, and Skatje Myers have reopened the Pandora's box on matters of Faith. As I've stated before, I feel strongly that Science need not become universally synonymous with Godlessness because that certainly doesn't win any converts. Any breed of fundamentalism (atheism included) usually results in alienating good folks and losing credibility among everyone who thinks or believes differently. Granted, I'm green in the blogosphere, but the topic is one that really gets under my skin because it pits two fundamentally different levels of argument against one other. That said, I recognize it's a recurring theme and source of contention, and therefore the great science religion divide needs to be addressed. (deep breath) Here goes..
Based on experience, I believe it's futile to battle over religion. With regard to PZ, what's important to recognize is that he's not alone in his views and represents a growing perspective. And while I may not always agree with everything he writes, his inflammatory remarks keep us all reading and interested. What will he say next? Who will he infuriate? It's almost Howard Stern/Rush Limbaugh-esqu. Love him or hate him, he's popular. He's notorious. He's very much PZ!
Now the reason we're all here and part of this SB community is to turn these issues on their head. Debating is half the fun, but all the hullabaloo and angry discourse lately seem to leave many less than enthusiastic to stay engaged. As for me, I love topics like this for the very reason that no matter what you advocate, there's no conclusion.. but it gives us all more to ponder. So I'll continue spinning ideas around and certainly hope you'll join me because clearly, there's no escape from the interaction of religion and science with culture. Regardless of where you fall in the equation these topics will continue to impact all of us and thus, I encourage exploration, contemplation, and friendly discourse sans all the huffing and puffing and hurt feelings. Just maybe, when we're open to alternative views, everyone wins.
Several readers seem to have bypassed these comments so I'll repost here:
I'm by no means purporting atheism is fundamentalism, but rather that any belief has the potential to approach that level when we get to the point we're not willing to listen to those who hold other perspectives.
PZ - I daresay I don't know where I stand with regard to religion. [Note: I've never actually written about that in detail!] ;) But it sure is fun following the fallout.. I mainly advocate tolerance and respect for others beliefs universally. And please don't be offended with regard to the radio reference - after all - I spent years in radio and mean no ill will other than you're successful in that you keep people interested and engaged - whether they agree or not.
Comments
Do you suppose you would worry about "alienating" or "losing credibility" with your religious friends if they believed in pixies and elves as the main forces in the universe? I see little practical difference in the beliefs of Christians, Muslims, Jews etc.
Supernatural belief systems of any kind are simply inconsistent with scientific inquiry.
Posted by: Lance | July 16, 2007 9:54 AM
I'm with you on this, Sheril. I have a couple of book reviews at my Science Shelf website that bear directly on the discussion, and I'll let them speak for themselves.
http://www.scienceshelf.com/ScientificExperienceSagan.htm
The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God by Carl Sagan, edited by Ann Druyan
and
http://www.scienceshelf.com/EvolvingGod.htm
Evolving God: A Provocative View of the Origins of Religion by Barbara J. King
You don't have to be a theist to appreciate these two titles.
Posted by: Fred Bortz | July 16, 2007 10:06 AM
Atheism is not fundamentalism. It is the refusal to believe in any religion of any stripe, including any fundamentalism. When you accuse nonbelieivers of being the worst kind of believers, you look like a fool, and quite a bit like a religious wacko.
People who do not believe in UFOs are not crackpots.
People who do not believe in witchcraft are not occultists.
People who do not believe in palmistry are not fortunetellers.
Religious wackos argue that atheism is a religion, and you know it is not. Branding nonbelievers as the worst kind of believers is pure chicanery. Chris, you're smarter than that.
Posted by: CRM-114 | July 16, 2007 10:37 AM
Sherri, I'm very disappointed to be lumped in with the science-deniers because I'm an atheist.
It's also completely illogical on your part to do so.
I always thought people who promoted science wanted evidence. I have no scientific evidence that there is a god, therefore, I am an atheist.
Fundamentalists have no scientific evidence that there is a god, therefore, they rely on ancient legends.
I'd rather rely on reason.
Posted by: Laurie D. T. Mann | July 16, 2007 11:07 AM
I agree. And this is why we should teach the controversy about evolution, and explore the many solar and cosmic-ray and volcano-based explanations for global warming. Just because the evidence is overwhelmingly one sided doesn't mean we should be rude to those who continue to promote damaging alternate views!
Posted by: Jonathan Dursi | July 16, 2007 11:11 AM
CRM-114, I was also offended by the refernece to athiests as "fundamentalists". It is an illogical attempt to mislabel non-belief as belief.
It is also part of the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
Posted by: Lance | July 16, 2007 11:18 AM
I by no means purport atheism is fundamentalism, but rather that any belief has the potential to approach that level when we get to the point we're not willing to listen to those who hold other perspectives. CRM-114, it's Sheril, not Chris.
Posted by: Sheril R. Kirshenbaum | July 16, 2007 11:54 AM
Sheril wrote:
Okay, Sheril, how willing are you to listen to the views of Tristan J. Shuddery? Have you bothered to read "The Secret" yet? Have you given an alien abductee a fair hearing recently? When did you last consult a professional astrologer to find out what their views were? Have you ever watched Pat Robertson's show?
In other words, are you practicing what you preach? Have you really been willing to listen to those who hold other perspectives?
I would suggest that it is the guys who are dealing out the insults who actually listened.
Posted by: Norman Doering | July 16, 2007 12:18 PM
Look, Sherii, it depends what they're trying to sell.
I know some religious people are fine scientists and doctors and the like. Of course, I'd listen to them. Someone being religious doesn't automatically mean they are also brainless.
But waste a second of time listening to anyone trying to tell me that the earth is 6,000 years old? That humans haven't descended from apes? That Noah's Flood was a real incident? Come on, let's be real. Why should I listen to crap like that unless I'm in the mood to hear fantasy? That's not being close-minded, that's being immune to many kinds of fraud.
Posted by: Laurie D. T. Mann | July 16, 2007 12:39 PM
Any breed of fundamentalism (atheism included)
... and that would be where I stopped reading.
Posted by: thickslab | July 16, 2007 12:47 PM
Your above entry seems to contain only logical fallacies: A strawman ('certainty...'), two uses of ad hominem ('fundamentalist', PZ as an inflammatory Rush Limbaugh), the middle ground fallacy presented at least twice... I don't see an actual -argument- anywhere here.
Ms. Kirshenbaum presents no evidence for her claim that atheists are 'the same' as fundamentalists, nor for her implicit assumption that the 'true' answer must be somewhere between these two 'extremes.' She also fails to consider where the burden of proof lies in this argument, though Bertrand Russell has conclusively demonstrated it is on the theist to support their extraordinary argument.
I'm afraid your outrage stems from inculcation in a society which expects extraordinary, overweening respect for the 'holy' and 'religious,' rather than any logical or evidentiary basis.
Posted by: B. Dewhirst | July 16, 2007 12:54 PM
What would those "other perspectives" be? That there is an eye in the sky judging our every move? That evolution is not consistent with observed fact? That the Grand Canyon was formed in days? If not those, then what, exactly, is it one has to be willing to listen to to avoid, in your judgement, to be a "fundamentalist"?
Posted by: Jesper Anderson | July 16, 2007 1:04 PM
Sheril,
Excellent job of stirring the pot! As always, this topic has the potential to spark a really great debate, but also brings out the worst in many folks who are anxious to defend their own positions while destroying the positions of others. I do agree with you that *some* atheists do take an approach to their (non)beliefs similar to that taken by religious fundamentalists - instead of acknowledging that we each experience and make sense of the world differently, and thus may come to different conclusions about how the world operates, they immediately attack those who don't embrace their views whole hog. Instead, a more productive approach may involve taking the time to engage in a civil discussion about the various perspectives, experiences, and interpretations of the world that may lead toward or away from a particular belief structure.
Personally, I do not see a fundamental disconnect between faithfulness and science, and I do believe that they can go hand in hand. Certainly, a specific belief structure may be in conflict with a specific scientific theorem, but so to may two theorems be in conflict until further investigation can untangle the issue further (and in some cases, only confuse the issue even more). I can believe that God or gods or little green men set in motion a series of events that eventually led to the world in which we live - especially if my particular set of beliefs includes a "non-meddling" clause which states that the Supreme Being allows the regular beings of this world to have free will. At the same time, I can use science to learn more about that world, to discover the "rules" (e.g., physical constants, evolutionary relationships, etc.), and to make decisions about how I live my life. If I also believe that I will be judged at the end of my life - welcomed to a higher plane of everlasting glory for being "good," doomed by karma to return to Earth as a lower being, or sent to a flaming eternity because of my evil ways - well, that is just another piece of my decision, not so different from deciding whether the estimated costs of global warming remediation should include a heavily or lightly discounted future generations.
Posted by: Emily | July 16, 2007 1:33 PM
Tell me Sheril, do you have gasoline in your fire extinguisher?
Posted by: Science Avenger | July 16, 2007 1:35 PM
...checking in from coastal Mississippi....
Hey Science Avenger, of course Sheril has gasoline in her fire extinguisher, why do you think I asked her to join the blog? ;>
and with that, I'm going back to hurricanes
Posted by: Chris Mooney | July 16, 2007 1:48 PM
Sheril, I think others have already nailed some of the important points about your post (you cannot be a fundamentalist atheist being the most important). It is always good when people are willing to listen. I had a friend who talked with strange ghosts and spirits on a daily basis, I liked her a lot and never told her I thought she was also a nutjob, I just assumed that these beings were in her head and had reality for her and no one else. However, were these beings to become a factor in governmental policy decisions I would scream out.
The problem is in the world today there is an assumption that one must have special respect for people who believe that for which there is no evidence. This is dangerous as you can see from recent terrorist events. Time to stop! We have to reach a position where to be deist-free is considered sane and normal. It will take all the PZs and Dawkins and Hichins we can get and then some. It will also take the more moderate people (that was Skatjes point if I remember right). So good luck to you and Chris - but expend your energies in reasonable discourse with theists, don't waste it bashing the passionate wing of skeptism.
Posted by: sailor | July 16, 2007 1:59 PM
"I by no means purport atheism is fundamentalism..."
"Any breed of fundamentalism (atheism included)..."
I by no means purport german shepherds are dogs...
Any breed of dogs (german shepherds included)...
Posted by: MK | July 16, 2007 1:59 PM
Sheril wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by "fundamentalism" here. (And by "here", I mean both in your comments and your original post.) Seeing as how atheists don't exactly have a fundamental text from which they (we) base their (our) opinions, and no infallible authority whose dictates they (we) unquestionably accept, what exactly would make one "fundamentalist", as opposed to, say, "strident" or "vocal" or "somewhat impolite"? What does the term mean to you, besides being some catch-all synonym for "bad"?
Posted by: factlike | July 16, 2007 2:03 PM
You may very well have the best of intentions, but you seem to be willfully evading a simple and obvious fact. Religion is irrelevant in science. Therefore, science is "godless." There is no way to persuade any of us who find no evidence and no reason to believe in that which can not be measured and quantified that there is any need to accomodate such a preposterous idea. The burden of proof is upon those who believe. Want us to take you seriously? Provide evidence, just like science does. Until then, shut the - up about it.
Posted by: Milo Johnson | July 16, 2007 2:07 PM
I by no means purport atheism is fundamentalism, but rather that any belief has the potential to approach that level when we get to the point we're not willing to listen to those who hold other perspectives
You appear to be defining "fundamentalist" as "someone who is not willing to listen to those who hold other perspectives." This is not a legitimate definition for "fundamentalist."
First and perhaps most importantly, it does a serious disservice to real fundamentalists. Some fundamentalists are annoying zealots who won't even listen to others, much less take seriously what they have to say, but others aren't. What you are doing is taking a label for a legitimate religious movement and transforming it into nothing more than a form of criticism or attack. It's wrong to use "fundamentalist" as a synonym for things you happen not to like at any given time.
In your post, your words go even further by suggesting that "fundamentalists" and "good folk" are mutually exclusive groups. I thought atheists were the ones who were supposed to be so intolerant and uncivil? Why am I, an atheist, put in the position of having to defend fundamentalists and fundamentalism?
Second, you create the connotation that there is something about atheism which one can be "fundamentalist" about in the normal sense -- i.e., that there are basic doctrines, texts, traditions, etc. that one must adhere to without regard to modern advances, changes, etc. There is nothing to be "fundamentalist" about in atheism in either a limited or expanded, metaphorical sense.
If you mean to say that there are atheist who are annoying, closed-minded, insulting, inflexible, strident, etc., then why not just say so? Of course, if you do then you might be asked to support such a claim. Calling someone a "fundamentalist" is sufficiently vague that it's hard to know in advance what, if anything, might qualify as support. This is the third and final reason why the term is wrong: it encourages lazy thinking and writing because you don't have to be clear even in your own mind what you mean or what you are talking about.
Posted by: Austin Cline | July 16, 2007 2:27 PM
My comment reposted from Pharyngula
______________
Oh PZ - I daresay I don't know where I stand with regard to religion. I've never actually written about that in detail ;) But it sure is fun following the fallout..
I mainly advocate tolerance and respect for others beliefs universally.
And please don't be offended with regard to the radio reference - after all - I spent years in radio and mean no ill will. Only that you're successful in that you keep people interested and engaged - whether they agree or not!
Posted by: Sheril R. Kirshenbaum | July 16, 2007 2:39 PM
"Science need not become universally synonymous with Godlessness because that certainly doesn't win any converts"
Converts to what?
Is science about converting people?
I thought it was about discovering how the world works.
Scientists may have influence over the public largely by virtue of their credibility on matters dealing with reality , but they certainly have no control over whether people accept what they tell them -- and, perhaps i am wrong, but I don't believe it is their job to convert people.
And speaking of winning converts, do you think this comment is likely to win any?
"It's almost Howard Stern/Rush Limbaugh-esqu. Love him or hate him, he's popular. He's notorious. He's very much PZ!"
PZ like Rush Limbaugh and Howard Stern? Good God.
Posted by: Dark Tent | July 16, 2007 2:42 PM
Sheril, careful with language. You said:
Any breed of fundamentalism (atheism included) usually results in alienating good folks and losing credibility among everyone who thinks or believes differently.
You meant there are various breeds of fundamentalism, with "atheist fundamentalism" being one type, but that doesn't exclude a non-fundamentalist atheism. But people are reading it--understandably--as there are various breeds of fundamentalism, with atheism being one of those breeds. A better choice of phrasing might be:
Any breed of fundamentalism (atheist fundamentalism included) usually results in alienating good folks and losing credibility among everyone who thinks or believes differently.
But beyond that confusion, I take issue with your intended point, too, because we simply need to get this word fundamentalism out of our discourse entirely. Originally used to describe a specific subset of Christians who emphasized 5 key biblical fundamental principles, it has become overapplied and has turned into a junk descriptor, and only serves to muddy the discussion. If you think otherwise, I'd love to read an argument in support of the usefulness of this term.
Posted by: cm | July 16, 2007 2:48 PM
"I mainly advocate tolerance and respect for others beliefs universally."
Unbelievable. I for one refuse to either tolerate or respect beliefs that are rooted in superstition and can cause harm to others.
Posted by: Nan | July 16, 2007 2:52 PM
Okay, I guess I need to say why I think Sheril was right about not picking fights with people for whom religion plays an important part of their lives. That includes a lot of non-theists like me who value what a religious community can offer.
I cited two book reviews earlier. Here are excerpts that support my contention.
From http://www.scienceshelf.com/EvolvingGod.htm
And from http://www.scienceshelf.com/ScientificExperienceSagan.htm
Sagan didn't sacrifice his skepticism to work with religious people. To me, he is a far better example than Hitchens or Dawkins, who, to use a misplaced metaphor, preach only to the converted.
Posted by: Fred Bortz | July 16, 2007 2:56 PM
I'm afraid you have this one backwards. Science is not waging war on religion. Quite the opposite.
Take a hard look at the Bush Reich's actions over the past 6+ years. Bush and his thugs have actively hindered research, suppressed findings, and censored scientists when they clash with their pseudo-theocratic beliefs. Take a walk through Ken Ham's fantasy camp in KY. Review the Kansas School Board's actions of the last three years. Spend a day in a Liberty University classroom. Read anything published by the Discovery Institute. Sit by the bedside of a child who is dying of a treatable disease while her parents refuse medical help because of their religion.
It is religion that insists on challenging science. Don't expect those of us with clear, rational minds to lay down and play dead while our country is being run by people that believe an invisible man in the sky is whispering secrets in their ear.
OEJ
Posted by: One Eyed Jack | July 16, 2007 2:58 PM
What are the "fundaments" or "fundamentals" of atheism? I'm sorry if this seems a little too obvious, or even silly, but I wonder whether there's not a useful discussion about our use of language, and the need for terms that we can all agree upon.
Without considering it too much, I will say that I'm with those who have taken Ms. Kirshenbaum to task for her use of the word "fundamentalist". I don't think the word should be used to describe a state of mind (if you will) such as atheist, which, I think quite properly, should be seen as a sort of all or nothing proposition. There's a single fundamental only, albeit on which can be broadly applied. But there's no corresponding set of fundamentals of the kind that is necessarily corrollary or implied by the word "theist" -- is there? (I suppose you could say you believe in god but are opposed to religion in any form, i.e. you believe that all thinking about god should be purely personal.)
Posted by: Rob Edwards | July 16, 2007 3:00 PM
Actully, PZ recently gave a few conditions where he might start to believe.
In no way does that sound like someone who is unwilling to listen to other points of view, and perhaps even adopt them with sufficient evidence.
Posted by: daedalus2u | July 16, 2007 3:02 PM
Sheril said:
"I mainly advocate tolerance and respect for others [sic] beliefs universally."
Really? Do you tolerate and respect the beliefs of those who hold that men are superior to women? Who hold that one race is superior to another? Who hold that the earth is flat? Perhaps we tolerate those beliefs in the sense that we don't arrest people who hold those beliefs (so long as they don't act on those beliefs to hurt others), but I certainly subject those irrational beliefs to strong criticism, and I don't respect those beliefs. Do you? I doubt it. And I consider religious beliefs to be of the same kind as the ones I have just listed: irrational because of a complete lack of evidential support.
Posted by: ba | July 16, 2007 3:18 PM
You will have to forgive me of course, but how are we atheists fundies? That term should be reserved for those who believe in an invisible sky fairy who would swoop in at a moments notice and rescue them from whatever pitfalls they face. Atheists aren't the ones who are blowing themselves up while following the lead of countless others who think they get a room full of virgins to cater to their every whim. No, i'm and atheist and I love science and I am NOT a fundie.
Except when it comes to my GREEN BAY PACKERS.
Posted by: Firemancarl | July 16, 2007 3:22 PM
Fred Bortz said:
Is preaching to the converted really that bad a thing to do? Isn't that exactly what happens every Sunday at churches across the globe? That sort of thing in no way bothers me; what really gets my goat are the preachers who set out to convert the heathens, be they the firebreathing subway screamers or the manipulative "nice guy" missionaries with their creepy bicycles who act friendly only insofar as it might get them another notch on their heavenly scorecard. As an atheist, I have no desire whatsoever to "convert" theists, or to convince them to give up their religious practices. In fact, prostelytizing is exactly what I hate about religion in the first place. If theists kept their preaching entirely to the converted, I'd say the world would be a much less contentious place.
Posted by: factlike | July 16, 2007 3:29 PM
Sheril,
You consciously picked two odious human beings in radio for comparison to PZ. You did it with forethought. You new what you were doing. To now try and say you were only saying PZ's successful in keeping people engaged is condescending and ultimately dishonest.
You are at base a dishonest human being then, aren't you? If not dishonest (to try and be fair here) then utterly incapable due to deep insecurities of admitting you were wrong and apologizing to PZ...and maybe to the rest of Chris's and PZ's readers for insulting their intelligence with that lame ass "explanation." And this goes for your other comment about not knowing where you stand with regard to religion. Puh-lease.
Posted by: MK | July 16, 2007 3:40 PM
I think that it can be argued, at what point one's atheism reaches the point of fundamentalism, but it cannot reasonably be denied that it can happen. Personally, I tend to think that the point when an atheist, is falling into regular agreement with fundamentalist religionists, then they have become fundies in polar opposition. For example the notion that evolution and secular humanism are inherently atheistic, is a fundamentalist attitude, whether one is a religionist or an atheist. Does that mean that all atheists are fundies, hell no, but not all atheists agree with fundamentalist religionist claptrap either.
Fred Bortz -
I actually met Sagan when I was an eleven year old Christian fundy. It was a huge part of moving out of fundamentalism. After seeing him speak and asking a couple good questions during the Q&A (or possibly because I mentioned he was a personal hero), he sat down with me for a few more questions. After I asked him if he thought it might be possible for ETs to worship our God, he was kind enough to explain that he didn't believe in any gods and express his hope that I would explore the reasons for this, giving me a decent reading list.
I am still a theist, with very strong deistic leanings, but he (along with J Cambell) was very instrumental in my move out of fundamentalism and rejection of revealed religion. A very kind and gracious man, with infinite patience for the questions of children.
Posted by: DuWayne | July 16, 2007 3:42 PM
I mainly advocate tolerance and respect for others beliefs universally.
You're using words here with an awful lot of connotations and you're not being clear what, exactly, you mean.
Respect? First, beliefs themselves do not merit automatic respect -- there are lots of beliefs which should, in fact, be disrespected very strongly. Second, it's been my consistent experience that many people demanding "respect" for their beliefs frequently engage in "respect creep" -- they move from a minimal definition to a maximal definition.
Tolerance? That can mean a lot of different things. If you simply mean that you advocate being fair, objecting, and not censoring others' beliefs, than I'm with you there. If, however, you mean that you advocate lacking opposition or being indulgent towards others' beliefs, then I'm not with you.
If you are going to say that an atheist is intolerant and/or disrespectful, and furthermore that this is wrong, it would help for you to explain what you mean by "tolerant" and "respectful" and, furthermore, why those are attitudes which should be held.
Posted by: Austin Cline | July 16, 2007 3:48 PM
All alternative viewpoints are, of course, valid. Therefore geography classes should present the alternative viewpoint that the earth is flat. Astronomy classes should present the alternative viewpoint that the sun moves around the earth. Anthropology classes should present the alternative viewpoint that there are distinct races of humans, some of which are inferior to others. History classes should present the alternative viewpoint that the Holocaust never happened. All we have to do is be open to these alternative views!
Posted by: Chayanov | July 16, 2007 3:54 PM
I think she meant "Any breed of fundamentalism (fundamentalist atheism included)..."
Posted by: Jon Winsor | July 16, 2007 4:25 PM
I was going to respond to factlike, but DuWayne's personal example says it all.
I'll just add that preaching to the converted is fine, but it doesn't change much.
Reaching out as one human to another to those whose beliefs are different can make a profound change. That's why I think Sagan is a much better model than Dawkins and Hitchens and why my blog (click my name) is an exercise in gentle persuasion, not bombastic argumentation -- less fun but more Sagan-like.
Posted by: Fred Bortz | July 16, 2007 4:30 PM
"Just maybe, when we're open to alternative views, everyone wins."
Just because an atheist is vocal and adamant about their position does not mean they are closed off to alternative views. I'm sure if the theists could make a convincing case and not simply defer to "faith," PZ and others like him will gladly convert. The problem is that the theists cannot, and yet despite this inability, they are undeterred from spouting off their untenable claims as established truth.
If we are going to foster a society with a reasonable epistemology, one in which claims are given critical and rigorous intellectual scrutiny before being elevated to the status of knowledge, then we cannot allow people to get away with "truth" claims that fail even rudimentary substantiation. If you wish to allow those things, then be prepared to "tolerate" and "respect" the snakeoil salesmen, the Brooklyn Bridge deed holder, the faith healers, the Creationists, and so on. It's the same epistemology we're respecting and that we hold acceptable, so it shouldn't be surprising when people actually utilize it to be suckered by these shysters.
Posted by: AL | July 16, 2007 4:35 PM
> I believe it's futile to battle over religion.
Personally, I agree. Simply standing there and laughing loudly is much more effective. Arguing about religion gives it way too much credit. Once you take away the faithful's ability to stifle dissent with force and intimidation they really don't have any way to keep from being the target of jeers and brickbats. But, hey, it's a lifestyle choice!
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 16, 2007 4:49 PM
What science is universally synonymous with is collecting and maintaining the quality of evidence. And the lack of sufficient evidence is what leads to "Godlessness."
Science should not be looking to win "converts." What is "conversion," after all? The sudden switching off of a good portion of the brain's mechanism of dispassionate analysis and critical thought. By applying such loaded and religious terminology to science, at the very least you are guilty of relativism and/or equivocation.
For a thorough discussion of this issue, click here.
Posted by: BlackSun | July 16, 2007 4:57 PM
i think the root of this post is that ms. kirshenbaum is likely at least nominally religious, and she does not understand the "fundamentals", if you will, of atheism. the post seems to be a preemptive, defensive statement, which we all have made in the past, a result of insecurities. maybe one day she will hear the right words from the right person and realize why atheists feel as strongly as atheists do about the atheistic understanding of reality, and why it is logically and semantically different from a religious understanding of reality. then she will no longer compare the two in this way.
Posted by: dre | July 16, 2007 4:59 PM
"I by no means purport atheism is fundamentalism, but rather that any belief has the potential to approach that level when we get to the point we're not willing to listen to those who hold other perspectives."
Some atheists stop listening because they get tired of hearing the same fallacies committed over and over again. This doesn't mean they are closed-minded -- they were willing to hear it out the first N times, where N is an integer greater than 1 and proportional to the atheist's patience of suffering crazy-talk.
Take the ID/Creationist camp. How many times does it need to be pointed out to them that arguing from ignorance or into the gaps of our knowledge is a fallacy, and does not in any way, shape or form prove ID or Creationism? And yet they tell us there are no reasonable mechanisms for evolution of bacterial flagella, so one is presented to them, and they simply move into another gap, say by claiming there is no reasonable mechanism for the evolution of the blood-clotting cascade. And when that is refuted, they move into another gap, say the bombardier beetle, or the evolution of plasmodium and malaria. They keep jumping knowledge gaps, and after awhile, what exactly is the point in being patient anymore? No matter what knowledge gaps they jump into, it is still an argument from ignorance through and through, and there really is no point after a while for us critics to keep listening to the latest gap and attempting to address us. At that point, they may accuse us of closed-mindedness, but we heard their arguments through, told them why it was fallacious, and now they are just being dense, and we simply don't want to tolerate density.
Posted by: AL | July 16, 2007 5:01 PM
we cannot allow people to get away with "truth" claims that fail even rudimentary substantiation
But not all epistemologies are going to be scientific materialist ones. Just take one step into say, the social sciences, and it's a different world. Then just go and read, say, Plato. That's even more different. (I can just hear people derisively go "Plato, Bwahaha!! That old guy??")
My point is, we're not going to wake up tomorrow and have everyone thinking like Bertrand Russell. People have legitimate differences, views and assumptions. I don't think that's going to change any time soon.
Posted by: Jon Winsor | July 16, 2007 5:07 PM
or just maybe dre.. I could be atheist too? ;)
or not..
regardless, i'm sure having a blast following today's thread.
Posted by: Sheril R. Kirshenbaum | July 16, 2007 5:08 PM
Sheril said: "I mainly advocate tolerance and respect for others [sic] [sic?] beliefs universally."
ba,
maybe she actually meant "others' sick beliefs".
After all, she did mention Rush Limbaugh and Howard Stern (though I would not have included PZ with that crowd)
Posted by: Dark Tent | July 16, 2007 5:26 PM
"or just maybe dre.. I could be atheist too? ;)
or not..
regardless, i'm sure having a blast following today's thread!"
Simply infantile. Jesus!
Posted by: MK | July 16, 2007 5:34 PM
Uh... how are Rush Limbaugh and Howard Stern comparable? Aside from sharing a medium and being widely disliked, I mean.
Also, can we stop using the term "fundamentalist" as a synonym for "contentious," please? I mean, really, what would a non-fundamentalist atheist be? An agnostic, that's what. Nothing against you agnostics--you've got enough to deal with, what with those fenceposts digging into your buttcheeks all day.
And to whoever posted the touching Sagan remembrance--no doubt he was a sweet guy and a great (okay, the greatest) popularizer of science, but don't forget he wrote "The Demon-Haunted World," the original smackdown of religion. I'm not sure he's useful as an example--he could respectfully engage his opponents while he was kicking their teeth in, and that's a combination of talents so rare that it's not fair to hold someone like Dawkins* to the same standard.
*who strikes me as a pussycat whose defenders have allowed his detractors to define him, but that's a whole other flamewar
Posted by: solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short | July 16, 2007 5:51 PM
There is no such thing as "fundamentalist atheism." RJ Eskow completely and egregiously misrepresents both atheism and fundamentalism -- and in a manner which is not excusable.
Fundamentalism is not simply being arrogant, annoying, or narrow-minded. Fundamentalism is not simply believing the world would be better off if everyone agreed with you. Fundamentalism is a complex religious movement that is both a product of and a reaction to modernity. Eskow's use of the term as a rhetorical bludgeon for those he dislikes is little more than an expression of intellectual dishonesty and personal bigotry; as such, it should not be imitated or encouraged.
Posted by: Austin Cline | July 16, 2007 5:55 PM
Fundamentalism is a complex religious movement that is both a product of and a reaction to modernity.
Sure, fundamentalism is reactionary, in the sense that it is a formed reaction to something someone opposes. Views formed in reaction to things are not always right, even when what they oppose is wrong.
Say I'm a conservative (just hypothetically, because I'm not) and I formed my views because I don't like liberals' lifestyles. Does that mean all my conservative views are right? No.
I think religious fundamentalism is profoundly wrongheaded, but that doesn't mean I go after all religion in reaction and become an agressively confrontational atheist.
And I have nothing up my ass cheeks. I just have enough of an education that I don't think the world has to live and die by David Hume, Bertrand Russell, Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan or whoever else is in the pantheon. I mean, my science classes were great. But they're not the only subject in the curriculum.
Maybe some of this is that I live in the Northeast and have never had to deal with holy roller types, and I might feel differently if I did, but the attitude of contempt that frequently shows up doesn't suit people well. Come on, you can't tell me it isn't there.
Posted by: Jon Winsor | July 16, 2007 6:37 PM
I am a fundamentalist when it comes to elves. I absolutely will not believe in them no matter what arguments you have or what you say. I daresay evidence in the form of an elf would be undeniable, but since everybody knows elves don't exist providing one is impossible. So not only will I *NEVER* believe what you say, I have impossible evidentiary requirements.
Posted by: Tatarize | July 16, 2007 7:02 PM
"
or just maybe dre.. I could be atheist too? ;)
or not..
"
Definitely not. Unless you want to be the Ann Coulter of atheism, in which case I guess I'd like to find another name for not believing in God...
The purpose of arguing things from a rational point of view is to try to use facts and not merely try to "stir the pot." The purpose is not to try to be incendiary - the purpose is to attempt to ascertain facts. Based on some of the things you've said today, you do not care too much about facts (at least not where atheists are concerned).
Posted by: Laurie D. T. Mann | July 16, 2007 7:12 PM
Those of you who think that Sheril was claiming that all atheists deserve the term are way missing the point-- that's not what she said at all. However, I agree with her that some warrant the term.
For those of you arguing that such a term makes no sense, here's an anecdote.
At Vanderbilt, we were trying to create a class entitled "Stellar Astrophysics." One professor in the department argued that the title made no sense, and was redundant, for "Astrophysics" already means "physics of the stars." Fortunately, this is a professor who is one of "those," one who frequently makes "out there" arguments that many of the rest of us have learned to ignore. Because, of course, today astrophysicists study all sorts of things, and the study of the stars themselves is just one small part of a much larger field. And, indeed, we already had courses on the books entitled "Nebular Astrophysics" and "Galactic Astrophysics."
The point is that just because a word was created to mean one thing, and just because the etymology means one thing, this does not mean that it can't capture some truth when used otherwise. Indeed, with astrophysics, the etymology completely misses the point, even though in times of antiquity the "astronomers" were "those who name the stars." The term "fundamentalist atheist" absolutely makes a lot of sense in the context of scienceblogs and the modern world, every bit as much as the term "galactic astrophysics" makes sense today.
Posted by: Rob Knop | July 16, 2007 7:20 PM
"I feel strongly that Science need not become universally synonymous with Godlessness because that certainly doesn't win any converts."
Science doesn't need "Converts".
Posted by: Anonomouse | July 16, 2007 7:26 PM
i wish i remember who first said this, but a great quote is "saying no religion is a religion is like saying 'off' is a tv channel."
sorry, sherill, but even as a metaphor, to liken those who believe not at all with those who believe intently to the exclusion of all other beliefs confuses the empirical with the imagined. and you lose your argument and audience.
you could say atheists are as obnoxious as fundamentalists, but you can't say they are fundamentalists.
you could say democrats are as disengenuous as republicans, but you can't say they are republicans.
Posted by: skippy | July 16, 2007 7:56 PM
Yeah Sheril blew it, but damn she's hot.
(sorry zuska)
Much more seriously, Rob, there is a big difference between the neutral drift, if you will, of etymology, that leads to some of us referring to any old well-behaved chap as a "gentleman" even though it once had a much more specific meaning, and the kind of intellectually dishonest redefinition of terms like "homicide bombers" done for the purpose of political gain and poisoning the well of rational discourse.
"Fundamentalist atheist" is in the latter category. It's the bastard cousin of "admitted atheist". It's a way of depicting your opponents as flawed without doing the work to prove it. There are so many more common, less incendiary, more accurate terms that could be used, such as "aggressive", "antagonistic", "militant", and "outspoken". I'll proudly wear a nametag with any of those. But "fundamentalist"? Sorry, it's crap.
Want more peace across the deistic divide? Here's one way to start. Call people what they'd like to be called, short of "My Lord and Savior" anyway.
Posted by: Science Avenger | July 16, 2007 8:21 PM
I'll just add that preaching to the converted is fine, but it doesn't change much.
Posted by: Fred Bortz | July 16, 2007 04:30 PM
-------
Poppycock. Then why do religionists preach to their flocks every week? There is value in reinforcing knowledge and message. And frankly, whenever I read a comment such as Fred's above, I know I've run into a concern troll, not someone really attempting to "help me".
And Sheril, I hate to say it but your whole, "maybe I am, maybe I'm not" schtick is sad for what is purported to be a science blog. Why not just come out and state your position? I think the fair minded amongst your readers would still evaluate what you say based on what you say, not your religious beliefs. That is, unless those beliefs shape your science...
Posted by: ice weasel | July 16, 2007 8:29 PM
From Websters:
Main Entry: fun·da·men·tal·ism
Function: noun
[skip a bit]
2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles
Seems to fit to me.
Posted by: sgent | July 16, 2007 8:30 PM
You might, in fact, check out the the American Heritage dictionary, which defines small "f" fundamentalism as:
Note the "usually religious." Also consider Stephen Jay Gould's usage in connection with "Darwinian Fundamentalism."
The word has moved out beyond its strictly religious connotations to include any rigid adherence to strongly held beliefs, especially when coupled with intolerance for any dissent, particularly within the group.
Posted by: John Pieret | July 16, 2007 8:38 PM
Jon Winsor,
But not all epistemologies are going to be scientific materialist ones. Just take one step into say, the social sciences, and it's a different world. Then just go and read, say, Plato. That's even more different. (I can just hear people derisively go "Plato, Bwahaha!! That old guy??")
I don't see that the social sciences invoke a different epistemology. They certainly deal with different foci of study and examination, but the core epistemology, what allows them to justify a claim as knowledge, is the same. If the claim is empirical in nature, it must be supported by empirical data. If the claim is a priori in nature, it must be logically coherent and be consistent with its assumptions. This is as true for the social sciences, history, psychology, etc. as it is for the so-called "natural" sciences (though personally, I am of the position that there is no meaningful divide between the "natural" and "social" sciences, as technically, all things are part of nature, but that's neither here nor there).
The point being is that even in a social science like economics, say, we would not allow an economist to say "decreasing taxes will raise government revenue" if there is no empirical evidence for such a claim.
My point is, we're not going to wake up tomorrow and have everyone thinking like Bertrand Russell. People have legitimate differences, views and assumptions. I don't think that's going to change any time soon.
Whether or not people have "legitimate" differences will be determined by debate and discussion. If person X's views are "legitimate" (and I take by that that you mean "tenable"), then it ought to be able to withstand criticism and scrutiny. If person X's position can't handle atheist scrutiny, then he must be honest and concede he holds an untenable position. If he can handle atheist scrutiny, then his position is all the better for it. In either case, there is no use in criticizing the big bad atheists for bringing the scrutiny to the fore, as they are only doing what intellectually honest people do: dissect and pick apart ideas, as opposed to fence-sitting out of culturally-pressured "respect" for certain ideas that haven't earned it.
Posted by: AL | July 16, 2007 8:42 PM
Want more peace across the deistic divide? Here's one way to start. Call people what they'd like to be called, short of "My Lord and Savior" anyway.
Does this mean agnostics don't have to be called "weak atheists" any more?
Posted by: John Wilkins | July 16, 2007 8:43 PM
I think religious fundamentalism is profoundly wrongheaded, but that doesn't mean I go after all religion in reaction and become an agressively confrontational atheist.
Fine. So? Nothing I have written suggests that atheists can't be disagreed with or criticized. If you find some atheists to be inappropriately or unnecessarily aggressive or confrontational, then say so and make your case.
Posted by: Austin Cline | July 16, 2007 8:47 PM
I think that it can be argued, at what point one's atheism reaches the point of fundamentalism, but it cannot reasonably be denied that it can happen.
I deny it, and I have made extensive arguments explaining why. If you think there is anything about atheism to be "fundamentalist" about, feel free to make an argument. Simply denying that anyone can reasonably disagree with you doesn't cut it.
Wait, isn't one of the characteristics of so-called "atheist fundamentalists" that they deny anyone can reasonably disagree with them? Wouldn't that make you an atheist-fundamentalist fundamentalist?
Posted by: Austin Cline | July 16, 2007 8:50 PM
The point is that just because a word was created to mean one thing, and just because the etymology means one thing, this does not mean that it can't capture some truth when used otherwise.
That's true. I notice that you don't offer any justification for applying the term "fundamentalist" to any atheists, though. That would require explaining why "fundamentalist" should be defined in a new and particular way. Do you think you can do it? Don't just sit there and use the word in a new way while assuming that all the hard work has already been done.
All the attempts that I've seen thus far to justify a new sense for "fundamentalism" that can apply to atheists are based upon using the label as a synonym for attacks: intolerant, closed-minded, rigid, inflexible, etc. I think I've explained why I consider that illegitimate and I notice you don't offer a rebuttal. One of the reasons why I find those attempts illegitimate because of how they defame actual fundamentalists. What we have, then, is the atheist defending fundamentalists against defamatory attacks by liberal Christians and other theists seeking a new way to attack atheists.
Funny how that works out. You're trying to defend using "fundamentalist" in a manner that would denote that Christian fundamentalists are intolerant, closed-minded, ignorant, etc. just after you got done with an ad hominem-filled post attacking PZ for saying that theists are ignorant, deluded, wicked, foolish, or oppressed. So is it OK for you to make negative generalizations about groups of religious believers but not PZ? How does that work, exactly?
Feel free to actually make an argument if you think you can. Maybe you can do so in a way that will not attack religious believers (fundamentalists) in the process. I won't hold my breath, though, because I think if you could have then you would have already. You're full of grandiose assertions and anecdotes, but you're really short on evidence and argument. This was the problem in that blog post you removed the links to: claiming that a restatement of your original position qualified as "evidence" that your position was right. As a professor of astronomy and physics, you know better. Or are you now trying to redefine "evidence" more loosely now, too?
Posted by: Austin Cline | July 16, 2007 9:01 PM
So, I assume you'd agree that most people don't want to be called "ignorant, deluded, wicked, foolish, or oppressed victims of obsolete mythologies" instead of "theists" or "believers" and you'll be chastising PZ and others who use such rhetoric in the future, right?
Posted by: John Pieret | July 16, 2007 9:03 PM
(Maybe important to clarify: my "ass cheeks" remark was a response to "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short"'s comment above.)
Posted by: Jon Winsor | July 16, 2007 9:04 PM
Those of you who think that Sheril was claiming that all atheists deserve the term are way missing the point-- that's not what she said at all.
No, that is precisely what she said -- Jon Winsor's comment explains why the language used communicates just what you deny was said. However, I doubt that's what she meant to say. I've attempted to be generous and assume she simply meant that some atheists are fundamentalists. That's no less wrong, but it's a bit less obnoxious.
Posted by: Austin Cline | July 16, 2007 9:05 PM
Posted by: llewelly | July 16, 2007 9:12 PM
Posted by: llewelly | July 16, 2007 9:15 PM
Posted by: llewelly | July 16, 2007 9:19 PM
Science doesn't need "Converts".
Sure it does. Science education needs converts. Science policy needs converts.
"saying no religion is a religion is like saying 'off' is a tv channel."
There's no problem calling what you believe "not religion." But, if you believe that no religion has any basis, and you along with others have a sustained program to ridicule it, then it sounds to me like a system of belief, with its own set of assumptions. And sometimes, assumptions are demonstrably wrong.
Posted by: Jon Winsor | July 16, 2007 9:38 PM
Y'know, I half suspect people are intentionally saying stupid things in an attempt to attract attention to their blogs.
Science is more concerned with the evidence for positions than the social influence of the people who hold them. We are not a community founded on mutual respect for beliefs - quite the opposite, in fact. The scientific method is founded on not having 'respect' for beliefs merely because some person holds them, but in challenging and testing claims to the point of destruction.
It seems lots of people here want to test claims to destruction. What