James Hrynyshyn is a freelance science journalist based in western North Carolina, where he tries to put degrees in marine biology and journalism to good use.
One question keeps rising out of the ScienceBlogosphere muck: Are PZ "Pharyngula" Myers and his ilk doing more harm than good by relentlessly and mercilessly attacking religion? Rob "Galactic Interactions" Knop apparently has had it up to here with Myers's brand of anti-faith rhetoric, and started one of those neverending comment wars on his blog yesterday -- except that he did end it by removing the post. Fortunately, I saved a copy first because the exchange really does get to the heart of the question.
Out of respect for Rob, an assistant professor of physics and astronomy at Vanderbilt University, I'm not going to repost too much of what he said about PZ, an associate professor at the University of Minnesota. Except for his headline, which was "More evidence that PZ is a blowhard and a jerk," and a few small snippets.
Rob's problem is that PZ keeps describing Christians like Rob, and other people of faith "ignorant, deluded, wicked, foolish, or oppressed victims of obsolete mythologies." As the journalist responsible for a blog originally created to address the battle between science and superstition, I share PZ's basic point of view, although I try to avoid calling people "ignorant, deluded, wicked, foolish, or oppressed victims of obsolete mythologies" too often.
While the phrase does represent a fairly comprehensive list of the possible explanations for why someone would believe in a god, lots of my friends and many members of my family do believe in a god, and I don't see much point in offending anyone. None of them are ignorant, wicked, foolish or particularly oppressed. So are they deluded? Maybe a wee bit, but the reality is most of them were simply brought up to believe and "deluded" is an awfully strong word to use. It might be technically accurate, but in the world of real, human psychology, things are a bit more complicated. I wish there was another word that better described the state of mind most decent, fair-minded, socially concerned, politically progressive, compassionate, reasonable, intelligent but nevertheless religious, people share. But I can't come up with one.
If you read my posts about religion and atheism, you'll notice that I try to describe the situation without resorting to insult. I write about how religion doesn't seem to make society a better place, but I don't then add that all religious people are therefore evil. The facts should speak for themselves. But it's a fine line, and PZ, Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), Sam Harris (The End of Faith), Christopher Hitchens (God is Not Great) and Daniel Dennett (Breaking the Spell) all make different distinctions between fair description and insult. None of them use unreasonable language in my opinion, but for Rob, and many other people of faith, they often cross the line into offense.
In Rob's fleeting post, he writes of PZ's "buffonery [sic] and assholism, suggests that PZ's monstrous popularity is due specifically to his penchant for rude remarks, and then compares him to Rush Limbaugh. Now that's crossing the line.
I think most of us here would disagree. PZ is popular because he is a smart and prolific writer and has a good sense of humor. But still we are left with the question: does calling a spade a spade, to use Rob's metaphor, do more harm than good in the fight to spread reason among the people at large, most of whom are religious?
I don't have a good answer for that. I like PZ's work, and Richard Dawkins' and Dan Dennett's (and that of non-Iraq war Christopher Hitchens). I think we need people who dare to challenge what they perceive as foolishness. I think there is a place for such stuff. And ScienceBlogs, which is meant to attract readers interested in a scientific, rational approach to the universe, is one such place. Of course, there are times and places where it is not productive to be so blunt, and sometimes inappropriate language is used.
When I wanted my little city council to stop including prayer in their monthly meetings, I didn't write a letter noting that "Whereas prayer is a product of people who are ignorant, deluded, wicked, foolish, or oppressed victims of obsolete mythologies...." Instead I wrote about the First Amendment's Establishment clause and noted that a comparable town ended up paying $55,000 in legal fees when they lost their attempt to hold onto prayer during their council meetings. It seems to have worked, as city council meetings in Saluda, NC, no longer begin (or end) with a prayer.
But ScienceBlogs is not Saluda City Council. It's a place where we can call a spade a spade. And although I hope Rob doesn't mind me saying so, those who hold to superstitions can expect to take a little heat in this here kitchen.
Comments
Nice post, and well said, all of it.
Posted by: ctenotrish, FCD | July 13, 2007 1:41 PM
By "...Maybe a weed bit," you don't mean that your family is on drugs, do you?
Posted by: nit | July 13, 2007 1:42 PM
The value of the rude and unthinkable things that extremists like PZ might say is that they help move the Overton Window to provide more space for thought in the middle. A vocal cephlophiliac enables people to embrace and understand the natural world around them as an alternative to its purpose in being there is solely for our dominion.
Posted by: nit | July 13, 2007 1:50 PM
Overall, a nice post. Just one comment (hopefully I won't be throwing a match on the fire here).
I find myself being in the unfortunate position of being a Christian, and thinking ID/creationism is well... bull (to put it lightly). To many Christians, I lack enough faith. To people like PZ Meyers, (and I guess to yourself), I'm deluded.
So to answer the title of this post, in some ways I think P.Z. does do some harm as I think he just perpetuates the idea that there is a definitive conflict between Christianity and science.
I don't really mind the remarks so much as I mind that. I've been called worse.
Posted by: David | July 13, 2007 1:54 PM
By "throwing a match on the fire" I mean "throwing a match on a puddle of gas". If you throw a match on a fire... not all that much tends to occur.
Posted by: David | July 13, 2007 1:55 PM
I don't see evidence of extremism in what PZ posts. He's not advocating slaughter and he's not warning of eternal perdition if his edicts are not adhered to meticulously.
The problem, as I see it, is that most of the religiously deluded are so used to being treated with respect and kindness for their fantasies that a cold, wet dose of reality is shocking to them.
Hence, any form of comment that doesn't begin with something like "Well, you have your beliefs and I sure do respect them, but..." will always seem out of line and over the top to such believers. There is no amount of careful milquetoast self-Bowdlerization which will help them nurse their poor, hurt little feelings; any comment denying the reality of their gods will always be seen as the gravest of insults.
That's just the way it is. My advice to the religious is: Toughen up. Grow thicker skins. Deal with it. If you and your gods can't take a little criticism, just how all-powerful is this miracle-working force of yours to begin with?
Posted by: Warren | July 13, 2007 1:58 PM
This monring, I was going to post a comment similar to this one Rob's post but, alas, he took it down.
He really missed the mark on PZ, and certainly has no clue about us angry, in-your-face atheists in general. I am angry, and maybe even a little despairing, that this world and these lives are being eaten away by the malignancy of religion.
I will not go back into the closet, which is what the moderate theists would certainly like us to do. If our outspoken-ness causes those people to question their carefully crafted cognitive dissonance, then that is just swell.
We atheist have been marginalized (and worse) too long. We recognize that THIS life is too precious to stand by quietly while theists would gladly flush it all away.
Posted by: Jeb, FCD | July 13, 2007 2:00 PM
WHOA. Never read your blog before (hit it from the front page) but, I'm from Saluda - that was YOUR doing? AWESOME.
(Really, could the odds be any lower?)
Posted by: Andrew S. | July 13, 2007 2:05 PM
PZ's quote is awfully close to Dawkins “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).” I think that PZ, by offering "deluded" and "oppressed" softens it up a bit, if anything. These may not be the gentlest of words that could have been used, but PZ pretty much covers all of the available options.
Posted by: tharding | July 13, 2007 2:06 PM
It seems to me the issue is that many religious people (and even the non religious) believe that religious views and opinions are special, and shouldn't be criticised. Other views - political, scientific, financial, sporting or whatever are fair game. Someone can call a delusional political belief for what it is, but to do the same about a religious one is not allowed. People such as Dawkins and Myers refuse to accept this convention, which inevitably causes tensions.
Posted by: G. Shelley | July 13, 2007 2:09 PM
The Theists need to do two things if they want to not be called "ignorant, deluded, wicked, foolish, or oppressed victims of obsolete mythologies":
1.) Stop claiming that 'God' is objectively real. I do not mind if they consider 'God' to be real, or if they make their personal decisions as if 'God' is real and their understanding of 'God's Will' is correct, but it is extremely annoying and insulting when they claim that 'God' is objectively real and that - despite their inability to provide objective proof for their claim - I _must_ believe them....
2.) Stop lying about science, stop lying about atheists. It is fine for theists to disagree, disbelieve, or otherwise speak their minds - but stop saying things that are _not true_.
Posted by: Oscar | July 13, 2007 2:09 PM
I don't get the impression that PZ Myers sees himself as atheism's public relations guy with an obligation to put a conciliatory face on his writing. And I don't think that we can require him to be. He's popular because he's provocative, but I find his writing to be provocative to the point of being irresponsible, so I've stopped reading him. Others will keep going back, because that's what they enjoy... more power to them, I guess.
Posted by: Occam's Trowel | July 13, 2007 2:15 PM
Here's one "moderate theist" who doesn't want you to "go back into the closet", and who doesn't view the denial of God's existence as the "gravest of insults". As I said, I've been called worse.
On the other hand, what in the world do you think you actually... accomplish? Beyond of course, pushing those with any religious beliefs further and further from accepting any sort of science.
Posted by: David | July 13, 2007 2:15 PM
You know what, when I first read that phrase in PZ's entry, I read it much the same way I might use the phrase "evil, money-grubbing capitalist pigs" in talking about big business. That is, a deliberate exaggeration using catch-words to highlight the most egregious examples. But I would be doing it rather whimsically, and with the understanding that others understood that whimsicality. I guess in PZ's case, that concept gets past quite a few people.
Posted by: Ahcuah | July 13, 2007 2:18 PM
On the post by Rob you mention I made a post in which I pointed out that PZ, Dawkins et at (For the rest of the post can you just assume when I refer to PZ I mean, et al ? Unless I say I don't!) differ in how they respond to religion. Fair to say none of them, and Rob Knopp for that matter, have any time for creationism and its ilk and they are all extremely vocal in their condemnation. PZ of course has issues with religion in toto but it is fair to so he would not take the tone he does if religion was overwelmingly the moderate "cuddly" Anglican kind which accepts that religion does not have right to special consideration. In Europe most religion is just like that but in the US it is not.
I have heard creationism described not only as bad science ( which it is, and then some) but bad theology as well. I asked in the post Rob made about why there is so little theological objections to creationism in the US. Why are there no theists publishing the equivalent of "The God Delusion" to let their co-religionists know that thinking the earth is a few thousand years old is bad religion ?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 13, 2007 2:20 PM
I think what I am really trying to say to theists like Rob who think PZ does harm to their moderate position is this:
Get of your backsides and sort out your co-religionists yourself. If cannot or will not do not then do not complain when us "angry" atheists get pissed of at you for not doing so.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 13, 2007 2:26 PM
How about "conditioned" rather than deluded. As you note, most of these folks were simply brought up that way. It's comfortable for them to continue their beliefs, although they haven't really thought about them. If they'd been born in Syria they's be Muslims, etc.
I know that's the situation with my wife, who was born into a German-Norwegian Lutheran family in Minnesota, says simple prayers at night with our kids (which does bother me though), and goes to church because she feels she ought to. And for the social life. I asked her recently how she feels about same-sex marriage and she replied, "Meh, as long as it doesn't hurt me, I guess I don't care."
Maybe this is not an error and Rob meant to compare PZ to Georges de Buffon, who has been described as "an outstanding scientist in 18th-century France with a flair for publicity and grand public debates on a wide variety of topics now called natural science." Swap 18th century France with 21st century Minnesota and there you go!
Posted by: chris | July 13, 2007 2:33 PM
--I have heard creationism described not only as bad science (which it is, and then some) but bad theology as well. I asked in the post Rob made about why there is so little theological objections to creationism in the US. Why are there no theists publishing the equivalent of "The God Delusion" to let their co-religionists know that there thinking the earth is a few thousand years old is bad religion?--
I've given my two cents on this before here, I'll do so again. Being a Christian and believing in evolution/science in general is about the most unpopular position you can take nowadays. Christian publishing houses wouldn't publish the book because its not sufficiently in tune with what Christianity has become in today's time to sell well. I doubt if any secular/atheistic/whatever publishing houses would publish it for the same reason.
Publishing books cost money. If I had money I would consider it. I'm a 24 yr old PH.D student. I barely have enough to pay for gas sometimes.
Posted by: David | July 13, 2007 2:35 PM
"I've given my two cents on this before here, I'll do so again. Being a Christian and believing in evolution/science in general is about the most unpopular position you can take nowadays."
I think that just shows what I have been saying, that moderate theists have failed. Given that they need to let the likes of PZ have a go.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 13, 2007 3:01 PM
"I've given my two cents on this before here, I'll do so again. Being a Christian and believing in evolution/science in general is about the most unpopular position you can take nowadays."
I think that just shows what I have been saying, that moderate theists have failed. Given that they need to let the likes of PZ have a go.
--At least a moderate theist would try to bridge the gap. I don't think PZ would succeed in doing anything but making the gap worse.--
Posted by: David | July 13, 2007 3:03 PM
David,
Moderate theists have NOT bridged the gap, that is the whole point. We have had decades of waiting for them to do say and they failed. They no longer have the right to complain when the "big boys" wade in.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 13, 2007 3:12 PM
If Mr. Knop had any hope of establishing that he is less of an asshole than PZ, he failed miserably. Some while ago he took his shot at establishing that religious folk are not irrational, and he failed miserably. Look, if he doesn't want to be called irrational and deluded, he should stop acting irrational and deluded. "Shoot the messenger" is a time-tested method of dealing with the bearer of bad tidings, but it failed all those tests.
Posted by: Tegumai Bopsulai, FCD | July 13, 2007 3:13 PM
Re: G. Shelley
I think you meant to say, "...that many religious people (and even the non religious) believe that their religious views and opinions are special, and shouldn't be criticised." People don't seem to have any problem criticising the religious views of others, particularly if they happen to be at war with them.
Posted by: Scott | July 13, 2007 3:17 PM
So lets see if I can understand you Matt.
I don't have the right to complain about the fact that people like PZ are pushing the gap wider, because I and the few other religious moderates didn't succeed in bridging the gap. Yeah, that makes perfect sense.
If I thought that PZ was trying to bridge the gap and was just using some harsh words I wouldn't have any problem. The issue is that he, and you, and all the people who equate religious belief with irrationality/delusion are just drawing a big line in the sand and saying "You have a choice. You can be a Christian, and be irrational, and delusional. Or you can be a sane, rational, atheist. That's it".
Posted by: David | July 13, 2007 3:27 PM
I'll throw my lot in with Nit upthread.
I won't call PZ an extremist, since I think outspoken atheism is unpopular rather than radical, and his methods (blogging and talking) aren't outside of the norm. But I do think his forcefulness helps stretch the Overton window towards accepting science.
Posted by: hibob | July 13, 2007 3:29 PM
I personally regard the atheism stuff on Pharyngula as a bit of a bore. The science is great, though.
But then, I was raised in an extended family where no one had any religion whatsoever, and we were way back in the mountains where being religious generally meant you lived in a double-wide trailer, kept a dog on a chain out front, and beat your wife. Thus in my mind "religion" is somehow deeply equated with "inbred redneck." When you come from this background, PZ, Dawkins, et al seem incredibly mild. I find it hard to believe anyone is actually offended by them.
Posted by: Fred Ross | July 13, 2007 3:29 PM
Posted by: Tegumai Bopsulai, FCD | July 13, 2007 3:33 PM
--I find it hard to believe anyone is actually offended by them.--
Yes, because there's absolutely nothing offending about being called irrational or delusional or foolish. No... that's just peachy. I mean, you would hardly be offended if people called you that would you?
Posted by: David | July 13, 2007 3:34 PM
The word most people use when the believe somebody is wrong about something is "wrong." Just a suggestion.
Posted by: Macht | July 13, 2007 3:46 PM
"I don't have the right to complain about the fact that people like PZ are pushing the gap wider, because I and the few other religious moderates didn't succeed in bridging the gap."
Finally you have got it. Exactly right.
The moderate theists had their chance, for decades. Rather than reducing the level of radical theism in the US it ended up increasing. That is a big, big failure and one that is currently have severe consequences not only for the US but for many other places as well. The moderate theists have had their chance and it does them little credit to complain when others say "Move over, it is our turn". You, and your fellow moderates owe the rest of us a huge apology. Rob refused to give one, clearly you won't either so do not act surprised when atheists critcise you.
As for you not liking being irrational, delusional or foolish, the answer is simple. Stop being one, or more, of those things. Belief in a god is NOT rational, at least not by any normal meaning of the word. Rob actually said he believed in god not becuase there was evidence for god but becuase there was none. That is not a position arrived at by use of reason and logic, in short, it IS irrational and I for one am getting sick of the likes of you complaining about it.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 13, 2007 3:49 PM
I've had my wrangles with PZ's people on occasion. My biggest beef with the whole culture over at Pharyngula is its deeply adolescent feel. There seems to be a lot of folks there with a deep need to be reassured that not believing in God is OK, and ostentatious attacks on religion and what I call "atheistic Kumbaya" is just their ticket. It has the feel of an adolescent clique.
There is very little interest in, say, finding out how religion works psychologically or sociologically, or in speculating realistically about what a post-theistic world might look like.
What PZ and company are interested in is condemning religion. Period. They stay on message with all the avidity of a Bushie or an IDer. What exactly this has to do with science, I don't know, as it looks to me to be mere bigotry.
They're right: there is no God and religion is to blame for many bad things. But if you take these as mere facts rather than as the core of your sensitive new identity, the tone and content of the conversation about religion becomes quite different than what you see on Pharyngula.
Posted by: Oran Kelley | July 13, 2007 3:51 PM
Macht,
Wrong covers part of it but it is not sufficient. Scientific hypotheses can end up being wrong but there can have been a rational basis for thinking they were possibly correct.
What we are talking about here goes beyond being wrong but with good reasons for thinking you were right.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 13, 2007 3:51 PM
"A bit" of a bore? Now that's an understatement. it's become quite tedious, actually.
Posted by: Orac | July 13, 2007 4:03 PM
PZ is popular because he is a smart and prolific writer and has a good sense of humor.
Maybe true, but that's nothing to do with his popularity. Smart, prolific and good sense of humor doesn't get popularity.
Posted by: El Christador | July 13, 2007 4:08 PM
Over time I have, for the most part, stopped paying attention to PZ. Not because I disagree with anything he says, for the most part, but rather because I do agree so his posts have little substance for me. I don't see him reaching out to the middle ground people and offering them some useful words as advice to help them start thinking rationally. Instead I see him basically insulting the intelligence of anyone who might believe in a creator. Given that most people I know who will answer 'yes' to "Is there a god?", they generally haven't really thought about it that much and are just going with what they have been raised to think. We, at science blogs, are NOT your average person. We look around us and ask questions. Your average person is busy with the mundane details of their life which generally involves turning their brain off for 8 - 10 hours a day, going home, and turning it off some more watching TV then going to bed. These people won't start listening to you if you are barking at them, you have to talk softly, encourage them, help them come to conclusions on their own instead of presenting your own conclusions infront of them. This is what I think PZ lacks. He does not come off as a compassionate thinker who is out to help people, it comes off as an iron fist who wants people to agree with him. Perhaps that is what he wants? I don't know, but if that is the case don't expect anyone to start agreeing any time soon.
Posted by: apy | July 13, 2007 4:16 PM
Posted by: Tegumai Bopsulai, FCD | July 13, 2007 4:19 PM
People can no longer expect a free pass exempting them from criticism of their irrational beliefs just because they're of a variety traditionally labeled as "religion". This taboo has done immense harm to clear thought and those of us who identify with the "new atheists" are simply not going to go back into the the closet and start observing it again. Deal.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | July 13, 2007 4:21 PM
I doubt that PZ's tactics are effective at persuading anyone. But I get the impression that PZ would prefer that people be not persuaded because he enjoys the ranting.
If I recall correctly from social psych, one tactic that is actually effective at persuading people -- unsurprisingly, the diametric opposite of PZ's approach -- is "foot in the door" tactics. The textbook's example was of American POW's in ... uh, oh, either Vietnam or Korea ... who "converted" to communism and voluntarily stayed in the country where they had been captured after their captivity ended. The captors didn't use harsh, pushy "brainwashing" techniques, instead they used very gentle, low-pressure tactics, with the first step simply being to ask the POW to write a short essay about ways in which capitalism was not perfect, (note, not an essay arguing that communism was better than capitalism, but merely that capitalism was not devoid of any flaws whatsoever). And all steps were similarly low-key, but at the end you had someone who was genuinely persuaded that communism was better. (And that's for an ideology where it's largely subjective. In the case of atheism-theism, you've got, like, actual objective logic and reasonable arguments on your side -- which may or may not help, come to think of it.)
I recently read an article in (I think) Slate, which was discussing Hume and said (not their observation, mine) that he was successful at promoting atheism by essentially the same tactics, that he never put "all his atheist eggs in one basket", but in any work he would only focus on one, reasonable, criticism of belief in God, merely opening the crack of doubt.
I expect that actual effective promotion of atheism would use a similarly non-confrontational approach, but would focus on getting people to first accept small criticisms of theism that they would find reasonable e.g. no experimental evidence, or scriptures don't prove anything because anyone can write a scripture. But of course, that wouldn't be as much fun, would it?
I guess "thin end of the wedge" is a good metaphor for the approach, too.
Posted by: El Christador | July 13, 2007 4:22 PM
Matt Penfold writes:
And how do you propose to solve this problem using your "turn"? For instance, how do you define success, and what practical steps do you envision we need to take to acheive that success? Please respond carefully, as I would be adamantly opposed to any response that smacks of totalitarianism.
Even a totalitarianism that espouses the same views as I hold.
Yes, this is conceptually simple, but it seems to me rather unlikely people are simply going to stop being religious. I hope your plan is better thought out than this. Given that oh, 99+% of all those in political power and the vast majority of the electorate count themselves as religious in some manner, it would seem to me unwise to base your strategy on eliminating religion in any meaningful way. But I will reserve judgement until I see the plan you and the rest of the voiciferous atheists have.
Surely its more than going on about how silly and irrational religion is, right?
So?
Your getting sick about it doesn't make a difference, does it? Besides making you feel better, how exactly does this meet the religious threat to science or otherwise?
How specifically can you succeed where the religious moderates have failed in your view?
Posted by: Dave S. | July 13, 2007 4:28 PM
El Christador,
The tactics you say work have been tried. It is only in the last couple of years that "angry" atheism has become vocal. It seems to have started with Sam Harris, with Dawkins, Hitchens, PZ contributing. The gentle tactics have failed for decades. Why should we listen to you, Knopp etc who say they will work ?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 13, 2007 4:32 PM
Dave S,
You replied "So ?" when I pointed out believing in a god for which there is no evidence is not rational. The "So" is that some theists are complaining that they are called irrational. They have no grounds for such complain if they are irrational.
"How specifically can you succeed where the religious moderates have failed in your view?"
"And how do you propose to solve this problem using your "turn"? For instance, how do you define success, and what practical steps do you envision we need to take to acheive that success? Please respond carefully, as I would be adamantly opposed to any response that smacks of totalitarianism."
As I have said, as Dawkins as said, as PZ has said, as Moran has said and you failed to hear, EDUCATION, EDUCATION, EDUCATION. Success will be defined as not having idiots thinking that they can tell a women that she cannot have an abortion because their god does not like it. Success will be when science funding is not based on the whims of a president who has no understanding of embryology. Success will be when an American can be elected to political office without his religious views being an issue. Success will be when the religious stop thinking that what they think their god says about something matters to anyone else and has no place in making laws. Success will be when people can get married regardless of the fact they happen share the same type of genetalia. In other words success will be when religion is regarded as a private matter that has no place in public debate. It can be done. Much of Western Europe is nearly there. The US is being rather backward.
Education. It works. The more educated a person the less likely they are to be religious in the first place, and the less likely they are to hold fundamentalist views if they are. If you bothered to read PZ, Dawkins et al you would find education is what they advocate.
There is chance it will fail of course. That is not a reason for not trying. The moderate theist route has clearly failed. It is time for something different.
"Your getting sick about it doesn't make a difference, does it ?"
No, but it does mean I will be more likely to treat you with contempt. If, as some have claimed, this is a "framing" issue then the moderate theists are just as bad as they claim PZ is.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 13, 2007 4:45 PM
You know, it occurs to me that there's no attempt being made by PZ to "convince" anyone of anything. The tone and approach I'm getting from my fellow atheists is more along the lines of: We're here, we're atheist, get used to it.
This reminds me so strongly, in some ways, of various other civil rights language that's been used over the years it's almost causing a sense of deja vu.
That is, there might be a burgeoning wave of demands for recognition going on here (in a civil/social-rights sense), not any attempt to persuade the goddishly deranged that they're deranged.
Put another way, atheists don't care what others believe in, as long as they don't try to ram it down our -- or anyone else's -- throats.
And in that context, it is abundantly clear there are certain radical religious adherents who have absolutely crossed the line.
That, I think, is what we're really fighting against. And it's not just prayer in schools; it's "God camps" and bombing abortion clinics and flying planes into buildings. The difference, to my mind, is simply one of degree.
Religion short-circuits intelligence. Every time.
Posted by: Warren | July 13, 2007 4:58 PM
I am not going to be on topic for this. But since Matt Penfield is over here, I want to point out to him, in his question to me, that I _directly linked PZ saying what I quoted him saying_. If I link something and say 'for reference', I really do mean it. Hopefully you see this.
Now, on topic, being relevant on the initial post, it was said, "I wish there was another word that better described the state of mind most decent, fair-minded, socially concerned, politically progressive, compassionate, reasonable, intelligent but nevertheless religious, people share. But I can't come up with one."
This is sarcastic, but here's a novel concept. How about 'Decent?' 'Fair-minded?' Heck, you use 'reasonable.' Why not that? Do activists have to tack on a little bitty jab, to make it known that someone may be good, but they are still inferior? Really?
-Mecha
Posted by: Mecha | July 13, 2007 5:38 PM
Occam's Trowel: "I find his writing to be provocative to the point of being irresponsible, so I've stopped reading him."
FFS: "irresponsible"?
I can accept that a blogger has some responsibility to something other than decent writing and his or her self. If they were inciting violence or hatred, for example. Posting mocked-up images of someone being garrotted and leeringly saying how much they wanted that to happen. Along with an address and phone number, say. Then again, to my mind, that'd be a betrayal of the writing part too, and even of the self.
What I can't accept is the idea that someone with essentially no power making the rational, correct and only sometimes insensitively-stated observation that some incredibly fucking stupid beliefs are, you know, incredibly fucking stupid, is in some way failing in their responsibility. What responsibility? To whom?
Sooner or later, someone has to point out that the emperor has been prancing around naked for a couple of thousand years. It's a pretty poor show when others who've noticed the same thing start jumping on him for potentially embarrassing the tyrannical nudist autocrat.
Get some perspective, for crying out loud. People are being slaughtered in Darfur, but self-proclaimed "moderate theists" -- and even some moderate atheists -- would rather get worked up about perfectly accurate uses of the word "irrational". If there were a Hell, there'd be a warm place in it for such berks...
Posted by: matt | July 13, 2007 6:16 PM
Mecha,
You are correct, PZ did say that. However you seem to have missed the part when PZ said "almost". I also note you failed to take Rob to task for accepting support from joining ScienceBlogs from PZ.
"This is sarcastic, but here's a novel concept. How about 'Decent?' 'Fair-minded?' Heck, you use 'reasonable.' Why not that? Do activists have to tack on a little bitty jab, to make it known that someone may be good, but they are still inferior? Really?"
In one aspect of their life, yes they are inferior. This is what PZ, Dawkins et al have been telling you all along. Is it really that hard to comprehend that beleiving in a god for which there is evidence, or more, believing in a god because there no evidence, is not a rational position ? Finally I think you might be getting there. It has taken long enough.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 13, 2007 6:18 PM
... your first paragraph is absolutely devoid of any actual argument, support, proof, or coherent concept. The two things are in no way related. You missed the point completely. PZ was specifically being insulting, dismissive, and even a little threatening. He brought up his support of Rob specifically to cut him down in a multitude of ways. If you can't see that, then that's fine. It's OT here, and I will not argue it further.
And the second paragraph is almost as bad, except it adds prejudice, condescension, and assumption (Surprise! I'm not religious!) into the mix. The fact that you made that assumption is further proof of the conflation of 'disagrees with PZ's position' and 'religious/evil/bad/stupid', which is antithetical to debate, discussion, or anything else which is supposedly good. Sorry. That strawperson doesn't apply to me.
The response was meant for James, and James alone. Because I like to contribute.
-Mecha
Posted by: Mecha | July 13, 2007 6:30 PM
IMO, the problem may in part be that we need different words for different kinds of religion. I think the kind that PZ Myers objects to is the authoritarian, word-from-on-high, mediated by high priests, thou-shalt-obey kind. There may be another kind which seeks principles and processes for how people should decide how to behave, without claiming absolute authority. That seems to be more the sort that Rob Knopp espouses - although I write from limited knowledge. If so, perhaps PZM isn't seeking to attack people like RK when he writes about religion, and RK should not be taking personal offense. Just a thought. The following youtube link shows what I think is an example of the authoritarian vs. principle/process mindsets.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlSIwJgX5J4
(Sara Taylor's oath to the President vs. Senator Leahy's oath to the Constitution.)
I read RK's post this morning and considered an angry reply, but decided to take a walk and think about it first. I have some sympathy for RK for feeling himself to be under constant attack, and hope that in future PZM will add some footnote or something to exempt those call themselves religious without believing in ancient mythologies. I will also agree that the tone at Pharyngula can be adolescent at times; but I take exception to the personal characterizations. In the past couple years since I have been reading PZM's blog, he has set a policy on not attacking suspected trolls until they have had three chances to justify themselves; has twice set up special threads to give young creationists a chance to explain their positions; and has several times pointed his readers to sites where charitable contributions are needed. And I love the Monty Python references.
Posted by: JimV | July 13, 2007 6:32 PM
Mecha,
You are correct, PZ probably did intent to cut Rob down. Rob had intentionaly insulted someone who had previously supported him. Hardly being very grateful, or Christian for that matter.
OK, so you are not religious. But you do not like the way PZ et al want to proceed. What have you done that is better ? In short Mecha, put up. All I have seen you do in whine. Tell us what you would do instead, and why it is better.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 13, 2007 6:36 PM
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | July 13, 2007 6:43 PM
Posted by: llewelly | July 13, 2007 6:43 PM
No, Mecha, "decent" doesn't cut it. They may be decent, but NOT because of their religion, and too many people are decent who are NOT religious. As for "fair-minded" - ditto, at the very least. We're looking for a word that separates the religious from the non, and if you're saying "decent" is it, you AREN'T.
"Deluded" may be harsh, "conditioned" may bug you ... they're both pointing at what we mean, though. I like "believer" as opposed to "fanatic", myself. But that you think you can claim "decent" shows how intolerant you really are.
Posted by: The Ridger | July 13, 2007 6:44 PM
JimV,
You are correct in saying there does seem to be a split in religious belief between some of the more moderate theists who look on the religion as way of trying to find out how to live a good life and the more traditional sort. Dawkins makes it quite clear he sees such a distinction in "The God Delusion" where he says that were most religion the former he would not have written the book as it is. PZ has also made it clear he take a similar view. The problem seems to be that a number of those moderate theists have not taken that message on board. That some have is evidenced by the fact that many Anglican clergy are happy to be work with Dawkins' in attacking the teaching of creationism. Brayton makes the same mistake, but he does have the excuse that he refuses to read "The God Delusion". I am not sure if the reason is one of poor comprhension skills or principle.
I also do not think it unreasonable to ask those moderates who oppose PZ, Dawkins et al what their alternative is. I have asked several of them that question. It either gets ignored or I get told it is not their problem. That there is problem with religion in the world is not in question as far as I can tell. Rob, Brayton et al all say that radical religion is a problem. They are just a bit quiet when it comes to explaining how they will deal with it.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 13, 2007 6:46 PM
If you're talking about what I think you're talking about, no, you're wrong.
I thought Rob would be a good addition to Sb, and I still do. But every time he has one of these little meltdowns, I wonder if it's really doing him a favor to be here -- he seems to take my very existence as a horrific and personal insult. There's not a thing I can do about that, because I'm not going to stop existing, and I'm not going to stop expressing myself because someone here gets the vapors every time he reads my blog.
And no, I wasn't threatening. I can't be threatening. None of us has the power to evict a member of Sb, and even if I did, I wouldn't exercise it.
Posted by: PZ Myers | July 13, 2007 6:58 PM
If PZ did have the powers to evict someone, and felt like using it I rather suspect Rob would not be his first target.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 13, 2007 7:09 PM
One can call a spade a spade, without being a jerk about it.
PZ looks fondly toward a world without religion, but bristles at the merest suggestion that he might not be on the right track for getting there from here. He and many of his regular readers seem to live in a false dichotomy between the status quo and deliberate provocation.
People have their defenses because they need them. Religion obviously fills some human need, and atheism is not a substitute for whatever it is that religion does. PZ seems not to have mapped out a clear strategy for convincing believers that they should abandon their entire network of friends and family, their political afiliations, and their rationale for all public policy whatever, and forever wander in what seems to them a wilderness.
So short answer, if "good" is defined as believers becoming more accepting of atheists in public life, and more likely to seek nonreligious rationale for public policy, then it seems likely to me that PZ does more harm than good.
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | July 13, 2007 7:19 PM
"PZ seems not to have mapped out a clear strategy for convincing believers that they should abandon their entire network of friends and family, their political affiliations, and their rationale for all public policy whatever, and forever wander in what seems to them a wilderness."
I think the point PZ makes is that none of those are things that should be effected by their religious views. Public policy should not be decided on religious grounds. If someone's family would disown them because they became an atheist then that is one seriously dysfunctional family and it is quite possible the person would be better of out if it.
If there is harm being done here it is not by PZ, but by those who advocate such religious behaviour and by those who do nothing to stop it. The religion is the problem, not PZ. You want to shoot the doctor who diagnoses the diease rather than cure the disease.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 13, 2007 7:30 PM
We've been trying the "keep our heads down and maybe they won't hurt us" approach for a long, long time- with the marvelous result that most Americans seem to think that atheists are baby-eaters with two heads. Enough! We're here, we're atheist, get used to it. Concern trolls like decrepitoldfool are cordially invited to bite me.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | July 13, 2007 7:32 PM
I completely agree. That's exactly how it should be.
Possibly right, but it's a hard sell. I'm just sayin' that, having come from a nonreligious background, PZ seems to underestimate how hard.
I don't hide my atheism, but I look as hard as I can for common ground with religious people on issues that can't wait for the whole world to drop their religious beliefs.
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | July 13, 2007 7:55 PM
And as for HOW PZ would change things ? He has been pretty clear on that I thought. Education. High quality education based on secular values.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 13, 2007 7:57 PM
And this, to my mind, is precisely what he doesn't provide on the subject of religion.
I am really amused by the atheists as gay activists line being taken up here. It's ridiculous.
Are there people who would discriminate against atheists? Yes. Is it anywhere near as pervasive as prejudice against gays? No. Is the threat of violence against atheists anywhere near as severe against atheists? Who is the atheist Matthew Sheppard? Who were the gay activists who continually, tiresomely attacked heterosexual practices?
I've been around. I've worked with religious Christians and Jews. I've worked for them. The worst I've gotten is pity and condescension, and generally believers simply don't care what I believe. I return the favor: unless they make it an issue, I don't give a damn what they believe about god. Any more than I care about their what they like to do in bed.
Now, personally, I'm perfectly satisfied to live life as a religious minority. I don't need support groups. I don't need exacerbated/exaggerated conflicts and make-pretend solidarity with my fellow non-believers. To hell with all that. Why stop believing in religion if you aren't going to give up on the mindless zealotry and the inquisitions.
It almost seems to me that certain atheists believe that the only genuine religious belief is that which is maximally stupid (fundamentalism) and the only genuine form of disbelief is an equally frothy-mouthed version of atheism.
Sorry, you're wrong. And if you asked me most of you folks seem to have more of a will to believe than you are willing to admit.
Nothing worse than a reformed drunk as my dad used to say. (There's hardly anything in the world they want more than another drink, and all they ever do is bend your ear about the evils of the demon rum you are trying to enjoy.) Please folks, admit it: "I am a beliefoholic. I love having common beliefs with other people, much more than I love curiosity or the truth. I hate difference and would dearly love to stamp it out." This is the first step to becoming a true atheists.
I just love PZ's lament that someone can't stand his very existence. As if it were inscribed in his genes that he should behave like an abrasive jerk. That he cannot but be a tiresome busybody constantly trying to ferret out backsliders. That he cannot avoid making other people's beliefs his business, even when he has to scour the Internet to find out about them. No PZ, I just cannot support you in this shameless genetic determinism: You can be humane and liberal-minded. And you can even be scientific in your discussion of religion, rather than chauvinistic.
Posted by: Oran Kelley![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/nav-commenters.gif)
|
July 13, 2007 8:36 PM
Great, I'm all for it. Magic wand? Or exemplary persuasion that secular policy is best for everyone, and that stereotypes of atheists are generally not true. Social ties and perceptions, like it or not, do play a huge role in curriculum choice and school district management.
Lots of religious people already believe in the value of secular public education, and others can be persuaded. It'd be nice to have them on our side - essential, even - and with far greater chance of success than trying to get everyone to abandon religion up-front.
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | July 13, 2007 8:54 PM
"But still we are left with the question: does calling a spade a spade, to use Rob's metaphor, do more harm than good in the fight to spread reason among the people at large, most of whom are religious?"
Depends on how many of us Christians who are on the side of science as a means of knowing our material world are willing to be big enough to make common cause with people who openly hold us in contempt. It's certainly made me a less frequent visitor to, and much less frequent commenter at, Pharyngula and much less likely to commend it to others. Cost PZ a free meal or drink if he'd ever made it to Ottawa, since life is too short to spend it with people who think you're nuts. It saddens me that people with whom I otherwise have much in common hold me in contempt, even if they wouldn't express it to my face. I'm not sure folk like PZ can be particularly proud of that effect of their contempt.
BTW, if you want a word to describe religious folk who are allies in the fight against pseudo-science, why not try "mistaken" instead of "deluded". It's how I view you atheists and there's no particular shame in being mistaken.
Posted by: Mike | July 13, 2007 9:20 PM
MIke, I live in a country in which polls say that only a minority people would be willing to vote for an atheist for president. I couldn't care less if your tender sensibilities are bruised when I give my candid opinion (not high) of adults who still believe in fairy tales. Again, atheists have been trying the "get along to go along" approach for a hell of a long time, and it hasn't worked any better for us than it did for any other previously despised minority. So some of us are through with that. Deal.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | July 13, 2007 9:31 PM
What the deal with this? Are you trying to prove that you are thirteen? Or does it serve some other function?
Posted by: Oran Kelley | July 13, 2007 9:45 PM
Steve, 'going along to get along' is a straw man. We're not just trying to survive; we need to change the world together with the majority. Time is short so we don't have the luxury of getting in a pissing match with a supermajority just to placate our tender feelings. If it means we need to exercise a little patience and some empathy with people whom we believe are - let's say, "mistaken", we can do it. You never know, they might turn out to be OK, and they may decide we're OK. But first we have to stop shouting past each other.
We're all human. We get lonely, scared, we're gregarious and our social/cultural connections exert a powerful gravitational tug on our sense of reason. You're not above all that, none of us are. Our society is not above all that. But we all inhabit the same small world so we had better find common cause to whatever extent is possible.
For starters, many religious traditions resist governmental interference, so they side with us on the establishment clause. That's a good thing. Many evangelicals believe in caring for the Earth. Also a good thing.
Mike, if you're ever in Normal, Illinois, look me up.
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | July 13, 2007 10:09 PM
Oh, and Steve, a 'concern troll' is someone who advocates insincerely to undermine a point of view. You don't even know me but if you call anyone with a disagreement over strategy a "troll" you make it impossible to discuss strategy.
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | July 13, 2007 10:16 PM
YOUR strategy for "changing the world" has been tried for a long time and has resulted in the US being one of the most disgustingly religiose (and atheism-intolerant) countries on earth. Try taking those facts on board before presuming to lecture others.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | July 13, 2007 10:27 PM
Steve:
Why all the self-pity and exaggerated victimhood? You sound precisely like those whiny Christians who are always finding reason why they are so oppressed. Mostly because everyone refuses to toe their line.
I've been an atheist for 30 years, and don't feel discriminated against or threatened in the least.
I don't like the way this country is going, but neither do my believer friends. And I can tell you to an absolute certainty that liberal, humane, caring Christians are more, not less, susceptible to being harassed by zealots than you are.
But the contempt of fools no doubt buoys their spirits somewhat.
Posted by: OPK![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/nav-commenters.gif)
|
July 13, 2007 10:58 PM
Rob actually said he believed in god not becuase there was evidence for god but becuase there was none.
Dude, you can rant on, but please don't claim I've said stupid things that I never said. There's no need for that. You seem to be perfectly capable of insulting me to no end without resorting to prevarication.
Posted by: Rob Knop | July 13, 2007 11:12 PM
I've been treated to the well intentioned, inherently contemptuous paternalism of religious folk who think I'm a deluded lost soul in need of saving. The common denominator of all of good things about religion is shared by many atheists, PZ included. Religion doesn't have some magic monopoly on good, to the contrary the contempt that PZ shows towards religion is something in common with lots of religion. Consider the Pope's recent edict about the non-catholic christians being deluded about the object of their worship. PZ's meanness is no more strident than the 'respectable' Mennonite who told me the only thing keeping him from throwing me out the window was his belief in God.
If you want some alienating extremism, try Kourda's Church of Euthanasia or Fred Phelps's Westboro Baptist Church. PZ is nowhere close to being in their league.
Posted by: nit | July 13, 2007 11:13 PM
"A bit" of a bore? Now that's an understatement. it's become quite tedious, actually.
Man it is if everyone with a problem with PZ's blog has it as their home page and constantly hits F5. Don't like him, don't read him.
Posted by: Mondo | July 13, 2007 11:37 PM
There's a definitive conflict between all religions and science. The scientific method of inquiry doesn't recognize faith as valid depends on doubt and skepticism to function; religions either implicitly require faith in their doctrines or explicitly require it.
Christianity is an suitable example of the latter - it views doubt as a form of failure and stresses the acceptance of statements without concern for suitable evidence.
I presume you are a Christian. You need to acknowledge that your faith is incompatible with the skeptical and doubting perspective needed for science.
Posted by: Caledonian | July 13, 2007 11:48 PM
Steve, you might want to work on your reading comprehension. Or, your preconceptions are getting in the way, I don't know. The reason atheists are so hated in this country is that we've stayed in the closet and let the most repugnant religious haters define us. Coming out of the closet only to behave exactly as the stereotype dictates is hardly an improvement. It makes it easy for people in the middle to conclude the haters were right.
Most Christians, by the way, are in that middle.
Rabid Christians are Christian first - it's the only fact they'll allow that matters about them. By taking the same approach we take on the same rhythm of discourse as them, and just as easy to dismiss. By refusing to 1) stay in the closet and 2) refusing to fit the stereotype, we can break the stereotype.
Unless you really are, at your core, just an angry jerk. Then it would be disingenuous of you to treat anyone who disagrees with you respectfully. Be yourself, man! But don't pretend it's any kind of effective strategy.
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | July 13, 2007 11:53 PM
Mr. Knop is correct: that isn't the stupid thing he said.
What he did say was that he didn't believe because there was no evidence, but in spite of the lack of evidence. That's clearly a completely different stupid thing to say.
Please, when you're pointing out how dumb Knop is, be sure to be both specific and precise.
Posted by: Caledonian | July 14, 2007 12:02 AM
I think you have that backwards, decrepitoldfool: atheists stayed in the closet because they were so hated.
Rationalists tend to get good results when they go out of